IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2018-KA-01317-COA

KEDARIOUS DEZWUAN WILLIS A/K/A

KEDARIOUS D. WILLIS A/K/A KENDARIOUS

WILLIS

 APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/13/2018

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAMAR PICKARD

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER

BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: BILLY L. GORE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY: ALEXANDER C. MARTIN

NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED -10/29/2019

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE J. WILSON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND LAWRENCE, JJ.

WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Kedarious Dezwuan Willis (Willis)1and his uncle Michael Shantez Willis (Michael)2

were jointly indicted on one count of aggravated assault in violation of Mississippi Code

Annotated section 97-3-7(2)(a) (Rev. 2014) and one count of conspiracy to commit

aggravated assault in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-1-1 (Rev. 2014)

1

 Willis is sometimes referred to by the nickname “Day Day” in the record. 

2

 Michael is sometimes referred to by the nickname “Little Mike” in the record. 
by the grand jury of Copiah County. During trial, the circuit court granted the defendants’

motion for a directed verdict on the charge of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault. 

However, the jury later found Willis and Michael guilty of aggravated assault. Willis was

sentenced to fourteen years in the custodyof the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with

eight years to serve, followed by six years of post-release supervision with three years

reporting. Willis filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the

alternative, a new trial, which the circuit court denied. Willis appeals. After review of the

record, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On December 2, 2017, Travell Moore3 was shot following a confrontation he had with

Willis and Michael. Patricia Ford was the first of two eyewitnesses to testify. At trial,

Patricia testified that she saw Moore and Michael arguing and walking down the street

toward her house. Patricia testified that as they approached her house, she saw Willis, who

was standing in the next yard, pull a gun and shoot Moore as he turned away and tried to run. 

Moore fell in her driveway after being shot, and Patricia testified that she applied a towel to

the bleeding and waited for the ambulance. Patricia also stated that she was certain that

Moore did not have a gun. Paul Ford, Patricia’s husband, also testified that Moore did not

have a gun, although Moore was known as a “little brawler.” 

¶3. Moore testified that he was involved in a physical confrontation with Willis at the

3

 Moore is sometimes referred to by the nickname “Fat” in the record.

2
barbershop earlier in the day. Moore stated that he went to his brother’s house following the

confrontation. Willis testified that after the confrontation, he went to his brother’s house to

clean up the blood. Willis also stated that he picked up Michael to take Michael to Willis’s

grandmother’s house. Moore stated that Michael and Willis were outside of his brother-inlaw’s house; however, Willis maintained that he and Michael were outside on the same street

trying to turn around and find a parking spot before entering Willis’s grandmother’s house.

¶4. Testimonyreflects that at some point, Michael got out of the car and exchanged words

with Moore. The confrontation continued as Moore and Michael walked down the street.

Moore stated that he heard Michael say “shoot, shoot,” and that he saw Willis pull a gun. As

he turned to run, Willis shot him twice from behind. Tushima Young testified that she saw

Moore’s uncle Jeffrey remove a gun from Moore’s left pocket after he was shot; however,

Jeffrey testified that he did not retrieve a gun from Moore’s pocket. 

¶5. Chief Palmer arrested Willis within minutes of the shooting. Willis first denied

shooting Moore; however, his story changed shortly thereafter. Willis claimed that Moore

approached him with a gun but that he was able to disarm Moore and that he shot Moore with

Moore’s gun. Finally, Willis admitted that he thought that Moore had a gun, so Willis shot

Moore with a gun that he already had in his possession. 

¶6. Following a jury trial, both Michael and Willis were convicted on one count of

aggravated assault. The circuit court granted the motion for a directed verdict on the charge

of conspiracy. Willis filed a motion for JNOV or to alter or amend the judgment, to vacate

3
the judgment, or for a new trial. The circuit court denied Willis’s motion, and he appeals. 

¶7. Willis’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss.

2005), asserting that he diligently searched the procedural and factual history of this action

and found no arguable issues for review. Willis’s trial counsel also requested that the Court

grant Willis forty days of additional time to file a pro se brief if Willis desired to do so. In

January 2016, this Court entered an order giving Willis an additional forty days to file a pro

se supplemental brief. No such brief has been filed to date. 

¶8. The State agrees that there are no arguable issues before this Court. Finding no error,

we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 

DISCUSSION

¶9. “In Lindsey, th[e Mississippi Supreme] Court outlined a procedure that appellate

counsel must follow when they determine that there are no appealable issues in the record.” 

Allred v. State, 130 So. 3d 504, 506 (¶6) (Miss. 2014) (citing Lindsey, 939 So. 2d at 748

(¶18)). The Court stated as follows:

(1) Counsel must file and serve a brief in compliance with Mississippi Rule of

Appellate Procedure 28(a)(1)-[(5)-(8)]; see also Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S.

259, 280-81 (2000) (stating that “counsel’s summary of the case’s procedural

and factual history, with citations of the record, both ensures that a trained

legal eye has searched the record for arguable issues and assists the reviewing

court in its own evaluation of the case”). 

(2) As a part of the brief filed in compliance with Rule 28, counsel must certify

that there are no arguable issues supporting the client's appeal, and he or she

has reached this conclusion after scouring the record thoroughly, specifically

examining: (a) the reason for the arrest and the circumstances surrounding

arrest; (b) any possible violations of the client's right to counsel; (c) the entire

4
trial transcript; (d) all rulings of the trial court; (e) possible prosecutorial

misconduct; (f) all jury instructions; (g) all exhibits, whether admitted into

evidence or not; and (h) possible misapplication of the law in sentencing. 

(3) Counsel must then send a copy of the appellate brief to the defendant,

inform the client that counsel could find no arguable issues in the record, and

advise the client of his or her right to file a pro se brief.

(4) Should the defendant then raise any arguable issue or should the appellate

court discover any arguable issue in its review of the record, the court must,

if circumstances warrant, require appellate counsel to submit supplemental

briefing on the issue, regardless of the probability of the defendant’s success

on appeal.

(5) Once briefing is complete, the appellate court must consider the case on its

merits and render a decision.

¶10. We find that Willis’s attorney complied with all of the requirements set forth in

Lindsey. Counsel’s briefstates that he “diligentlysearched the procedural and factual history

of this criminal action and scoured the record searching for any arguable issues which could

be presented to the Court on Willis’s behalf in good faith for appellate review.” Counsel

asserts that he reviewed: (a) the reason for the arrest and the circumstances surrounding

Willis’s arrest; (b) any possible violation of Willis’s right to counsel; (c) the entire trial

transcript; (d) all rulings of the trial court; (e) possible prosecutorial misconduct; (f) all jury

instructions including the right to an instruction on Willis’s theory of the case; (g) all

exhibits, whether admitted into evidence or not; (h) possible misapplication of the law in

sentencing; (i) the indictment and all pleadings in the record; (j) any possible ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel issues; (k) anyspeedytrial issues; (l) any14th Amendment due process

issues; (m) any evidence of other bad acts and hearsay testimony; and (n) any other possible

5
reviewable issues. Counsel also states that he mailed Willis a copy of the brief and

correspondence informing Willis that he had found no arguable issues. Counsel also

informed Willis that he had a right to file a pro se brief and requested that this Court grant

Willis forty days of additional time to file a pro se brief if he desired to do so. The Court

granted the time but did not receive a pro se brief from Willis. 

¶11. After our review of the record, we find that there is sufficient evidence to support

Willis’s conviction. Willis was convicted of aggravated assault in violation of Mississippi

Code Annotated section 97-3-7(2)(a). This Code section states:

A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she (i) attempts to cause

serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury purposely, knowingly or

recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value

of human life; (ii) attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily

injury to another with a deadly weapon or other means likely to produce death

or serious bodily harm; or (iii) causes any injury to a child who is in the

process of boarding or exiting a school bus in the course of a violation of

Section 63-3-615; and, upon conviction, he or she shall be punished by

imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one (1) year or sentenced to

the custody of the Department of Corrections for not more than twenty (20)

years.

¶12. The State had to demonstrate that Willis attempted to cause or caused serious bodily

harm to Moore with a deadly weapon. Patricia testified that she saw Willis pull a gun and

shoot Moore. Paul testified that Willis shot Moore several times after Moore “broke and

ran.” Willis testified that he shot Moore in self-defense; however, several witnesses testified

that Moore did not have a gun. Furthermore, Moore identified Willis as the man who shot

him, and Willis admitted to shooting Moore following a confrontation. 

6
¶13. Accordingly, we find that Willis’s conviction should be affirmed and that Willis’s

counsel complied with the Supreme Court’s holding in Lindsey in submitting his brief. 

¶14. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND J. WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, TINDELL,

McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR. 

7