IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2018-KA-01317-COA KEDARIOUS DEZ W UAN 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 W HICH 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 W illis (W i llis) 1 and his uncle Michael Shantez W illis (Michael) 2

were jointly indicted on one count of aggrav a t e d a ssault in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-7(2)(a) (Rev. 2014) a n d o ne count of conspiracy to com m it aggravated a ssault i n violation of Mississippi C ode Annotated s ection 97-1-1 ( Rev. 2014 )

1 Willis is so m etim e s ref

erred to b y

th e n ick n am e “D ay

D ay ” in th e reco r d

. 2 M ich ael is so m etim es ref erred to b y

th e n ick n am e “ L ittle M ik e” in th e reco rd

.by

the grand jury

of Copiah County . During trial, the circuit court granted the def endants’

m otion f o r a directed v erdict on the charge o f conspiracy to com m it aggravated assault. However, the jury later f

ound W illis and Michael guilty o f aggravated assault. W illis was sentenced to f

ourteen y ears in the custody of the M ississippi Departm e nt of Corrections, with eight y ears to serve, f

ollowed by six y e a r s o f post-release supervision with t hree y ears reporting. W illis f

iled a m otion f

or judgm ent notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, a new trial, which the circuit court d enied. W illis appeals. Af ter review of the record, we af

f irm

. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. On Decem

ber 2, 2017, Travell Moore 3 was s hot f ollowing a conf

rontation he had with
W i llis and Michael. Patricia Ford was t h e f i r s t o f two ey ewitnesses to testif y . At trial, Patricia testif

ied that she saw Moore and Michael arguing and walking down the street toward her house. Patricia testif ied that as they approached her house, she saw W illis, who

was s tanding in the n ext y ard, pull a gun a nd shoot Moore as he turned away a nd tried to run. Moore f ell in her driveway af

ter being s hot, and P atricia testif ied that she applied a towel to the bleedin g and w aited f or the a m bulance. Patricia also stated that s he was certain that Moore did not have a gun. Paul F ord, Patricia’s husband, also testif ied that Moore did not have a gun, although Moore was known as a “little brawler.” ¶3. Moore testif

ied t h a t he w as involved in a phy sical conf rontation with W illis at the

3 M o o re is so m e tim es ref erred to b y

th e n ick n am e “F at” in th e reco rd

. 2barbershop earlier in t he day

. M oore stated that he went t o his brother’s h ouse f o llowing the conf rontation. W illis testif

ied that af ter the c o nf

rontation, he went to h is brother’s house to clean up the blood. W illis also s tated that he picked up Michael to take Michael to W illis’s grandm other’s house. Moore stated that Michael a nd W illis were outside of his brother-inlaw’s house; however, W illis m aintained that he and Michael w ere outside on the sam e street try ing to turn around and f ind a p a rking spot bef

ore entering W illis’s g randm other’s house. ¶4. Testim ony ref

l ects that a t som e point, Michael g ot out of the car and exchanged words with Moore. The conf

rontation cont i n u e d as Moore and Michael walked down the street. Moore stated that he heard Michael say “ shoot, shoot,” and that he saw W illis pull a gun. As he turned to run, W illis shot him twice f rom behind. Tushim a Young t estif ied that she saw Moore’s uncle Jef

f r ey rem ove a gun f

rom Moore’s lef

t pocket af

ter he was shot; however, Jef f rey testif ied that he did not retrieve a gun f rom Moore’s pocket. ¶5. C h i e f P a l me r a r r e sted W i llis within m i nutes of the shooting. W illis f irst denied shooting Moore; however, his story changed shortly

thereaf ter. W illis claim ed that Moore approached him with a gun but that he was able to disarm Moore and that h e shot Moore with
Moore’s gun. Finally , W illis adm itted that he thought that Moore had a gun, so W illis shot Moore with a gun that he already had in his possession. ¶6. Following a jury trial, b oth Michael an d W i l l i s w e r e convicted on one count of aggravated assault. The circuit c ourt granted the m otion f or a directed v erdict on the charge of conspiracy

. W illis f

i led a m otion f

or JNOV or to alter or am end the judgm ent, to vacate

3the judgm ent, o r f or a new trial. T he circuit court denied W illis’s m otion, and he appeals. ¶7. Wi l l i s ’ s c o u n s el f iled a brief pursuant t o Lindsey v. State , 939 So. 2d 7 43 (Miss. 2005), a sserting that he diligently searched the procedural and f actual history o f t his action and f ound no arguable issues f

or review. W illis’s trial c o unsel also requested that the Court grant W illis f

orty day s of additional tim e to f

ile a pro se brief

if W illis desired to do so. In January 2016, this Court entered an order g iving W illis a n additional f orty d ay s to f

ile a pro se supplem ental brief

. No such brief

has been f

iled to date. ¶8. The State agrees that there are no arguable issues b ef ore this Court. Finding no error, we af f irm the judgm ent of

the circuit court.

DISCUSSION ¶9. “In Lindsey , t h[ e Mis s i s s i p p i S u p r e m e ] Court outlined a procedure that appellate counsel m

ust f ollow when they determ ine that t here are no a p pealable issues in the record.” Allred v. St a t e , 1 3 0 So. 3d 5 04, 506 (¶6) (Miss. 2014) (citing Lindsey , 939 So. 2d at 748 (¶18)). The Court stated as f ollows: (1) Counsel m

ust f ile and serve a brief in com pliance with Mississippi Rule of Appellate P rocedure 28(a)(1)-[ (5)-(8)]; see also Smith v. Robbi n s , 5 2 8 U.S. 259, 280-81 ( 2000) (stating that “counsel’s sum m ary of the case’s p rocedural and f actual h istory , w ith citat i o n s o f the record, both e nsures that a trained legal ey e has searched the r ecord f o r arguable issues and assists the reviewing court in its own evaluation of the case”). (2) As a part of the brief f

i led in com

pliance with Rule 2 8, c o unsel m ust certif y that there are no arguable issues supporting the client' s a ppeal, and he o r she has reached t his conclusion af ter scouring the r ecord thoroughly , s pecif i cally exam ining: ( a) the reason f or the arrest and the circum s tances surrounding arrest; (b) any possible violations of the client' s right to counsel; (c) the entire
4tri a l t ranscript; (d) all rulings of the trial court; (e) possible prosecutorial

m isconduct; (f

) a l l jury instructions; (g) all exhibits, whether adm itted into evidence or not; and (h) possible m isapplication of the law in sentencing. (3) Counsel m

ust then send a c opy of th e appellate brief t o the def endant, inf orm the client that counsel could f i nd no arguable issues in the record, and advise the client of

his or her right to f

ile a pro se brief

. (4) Should the def

endant then r aise any arguable issue o r should the appellate court discover any arguab l e i s s u e i n its review of t he record, t he c ourt m ust, i f c ircum stances warrant, require appellate counsel to subm i t supplem en t a l brief ing o n the issue, regardless of the probability of the def endant’s success on appeal. (5) Once brief

ing is com p lete, the appellate c ourt m ust consider the case on its m erits and render a decision. ¶10. We f

i n d t hat W illis’s attorney com plied with all of the requirem ents s e t f ort h i n Lindsey

. Counsel’s brief states that he “diligently searched the procedural a n d f actual history of this crim inal a ction and scoured the record searching f or any arguable issues which could be presented to t h e C o u r t o n W illis’s behalf in good f aith f or appellate review.” Counsel

asserts that he reviewed: (a) t he reason f or the arrest and the circum s tances surrounding
W i llis’s arrest; (b) any possible violation of W illis’s rig h t to counsel; (c) the entire trial transcript; (d) all rulings of the trial court; (e) possible p rosecutorial m isconduct; (f ) all jury instructions including the right to an instruction o n Wi l lis’s t heory of t he case; (g) all exhibits, w hether adm itted into e vide n ce or not; ( h) possible m isapplication of the law in sentencing; (i) t he indictm ent and all pleadings in the record; (j) any possible inef fectiveassistance-of

- counsel issues; (k) any speedy trial issues; (l) a ny 14th Am endm ent due p r ocess issues; (m ) any evidence of o ther bad acts and hearsay t estim ony ; and (n) any o ther possible
5reviewable issues. Counsel a l s o s t a tes that h e m ailed W i llis a copy of the brief and

correspondence inf

orm ing W illis that he h ad f o und n o arguable iss u e s . C o u nsel also inf orm ed W illis t hat he had a right to f ile a pro se brief a n d requested t hat this C ourt grant W i l l i s f o r t y d a y s of additional tim e t o f i le a pro s e brief if he desired to do so. The Court granted the tim e but did not receive a pro se brief f rom W illis. ¶11. Af ter our review of the record, we f i nd that there is suf

f icien t e v i d e n c e to support W i llis’s c onviction. W illis was convicted of aggravated assault in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-7(2)(a). This Code section states:
A person i s guilty of a ggravated assault if he or s he (i) attem pts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such i njury purposely , knowingly or recklessly under circum stances m anif esting extrem e indif

f erence t o the value of hum a n lif

e ; (ii) attem

p ts to c ause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury t o a nother with a deadly weapon or other m eans likely to produce death or serious bodil y harm ; or (iii) causes any injury to a child who i s i n the process of boarding or exiting a school b us in the c o urse of a violat ion of Section 63-3-615; and, upon conviction, he or she shall be punished b y im p risonm ent in the county jail f or not m ore than one (1) y ear or sentenced to the custody of the Departm ent of C orrections f or not m ore than twen t y ( 2 0) y ears. ¶12. The State h ad to dem onstrate that W illis attem pted to cause or caused serious bodily harm to Moore with a deadly weapon. Patricia testif

ied that she saw W illis pull a gun and shoot Moore. Paul t estif

ied th a t Wi l l is shot Moore several tim es af t er Moore “broke and
ran.” W illis testif

ied that he shot Moore in self -def ense; however, several witnesses testif ied that Moore did not have a gun. Furtherm ore, Moore identif ied W illis as the m an who shot him , and W illis adm itted to shooting Moore f ollowing a conf

rontation.

6¶13. Accordingly , w e f ind that W illis’s conviction should be af f irm ed and t hat Wi l l i s’s counsel com

plied with the Suprem e Court’s holding in L indsey in subm itting his brief

. ¶14. AFFIRMED. BARNES, C .J., CARLTON AND J . WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, TINDELL, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR.

7