Court Opinion

ID: 9965708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 14:02:09.05801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:34.668672
License: Public Domain

Rel: May 3, 2024

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

                   Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
                               OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024
                                _________________________

                                         CR-2023-0324
                                   _________________________

                                    Tavaris Deshon Wilder

                                                      v.

                                         State of Alabama

                       Appeal from Tuscaloosa Circuit Court
                                   (CC-19-1426)

McCOOL, Judge.

        Tavaris Deshon Wilder appeals his convictions for discharging a

firearm into an occupied vehicle, see § 13A-11-61, Ala. Code 1975, and

second-degree assault, see § 13A-6-21, Ala. Code 1975. The trial court

sentenced Wilder to 20 years' imprisonment for his discharging-a-
CR-2023-0324

firearm-into-an-occupied-vehicle conviction. The trial court sentenced

Wilder to 10 years' imprisonment for his second-degree-assault

conviction and split that sentence, ordering Wilder to serve two 2 years'

imprisonment, to be followed by 5 years of supervised probation. Those

sentences are to run concurrently.

                                  Facts

     On April 30, 2019, Brasia Sparks and Shanajah Gary were engaged

in a physical fight in the parking lot of an apartment complex in

Tuscaloosa.    Other people were present during the fight, including

Wilder, who is the father of Gary's child. At one point during the fight,

Sparks "got on top of" Gary, and Wilder "pulled [her] off." (R. 118.)

Sparks testified that, as Wilder was pulling her off Gary, she heard

someone yell: "He has a gun." (Id.) Sparks and several other people,

including Kaleria Gilbert, then "ran to the car," and, "when [they] got at

[the] car, shots fired into the car."     (R. 119.)   The State's evidence

indicated that there were two bullet holes in the car that Sparks used to

flee the scene, and Sparks suffered gunshot wounds to her head and

shoulder during the shooting. However, Sparks did not see who shot her.

(R. 127-28.)

                                     2
CR-2023-0324

     Gilbert testified at trial, but the only details she could recall were

"picking [Sparks] up and … gunshots and … ducking down and seeing

blood." (R. 139.) Given Gilbert's lack of memory, the State sought and

was granted permission to play an audiovisual recording of the statement

she provided to law enforcement on the day of the shooting. After that

statement was played for the jury, Gilbert testified as follows:

     "Q.   Now, that was you in that audio statement, correct?

     "A.   Yes, sir.

     "Q.   And you don't remember what happened that day?

     "A.   No, sir.

     "Q.   But in that statement, you say that Tavaris Wilder had
           a gun?

     "A.   Yes. In the statement.

     "Q.   A couple seconds before -- a couple seconds, you see him
           with a gun before you get into the car?

     "A.   Yes, sir.

     "Q.   And then three or four seconds pass, and then gunshots
           happen?

     "A.   Yes, sir."

                                    3
CR-2023-0324

(R. 144-45.) Gilbert conceded on cross-examination that she did not see

Wilder shooting, but she testified on redirect examination that Wilder

was the only person she saw with a gun. (R. 148.)

     Inv. Jason McKee of the Tuscaloosa Police Department questioned

Wilder the day after the shooting. According to Inv. McKee, Wilder

admitted that he was present when Sparks and Gary were fighting;

admitted, after initially denying that he was armed, that he was armed

with a handgun that was tucked into the waistband of his pants; and

admitted that it was his gun that had been used to commit the offenses.

However, Wilder denied that he had committed the offenses and told Inv.

McKee that "some unknown person came up behind him wearing a mask;

that person removed the handgun from his waistband, told him he was

talking too much, and that person started shooting." (R. 225.) Wilder

also told Inv. McKee that, when the shooting began, he ran home and

then later went to a gas station, but Inv. McKee confirmed with Wilder's

mother and through surveillance cameras at the gas station that those

aspects of Wilder's statement were not true.

     On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Inv. McKee if he had

developed any other suspects during his investigation.      Inv. McKee

                                   4
CR-2023-0324

testified in response that Wilder's previous attorney had provided him

with some Facebook social-media messages that had prompted him to

interview Jaiveon Dubose. However, Dubose told Inv. McKee that he had

not posted the Facebook messages and had not been at the apartment

complex at the time the offenses occurred, and there was no evidence that

placed Dubose at the scene of the offenses.

                               Discussion

     Wilder raises two claims on appeal that, he says, require reversal

of his convictions. We reject those claims and affirm the convictions, but

we remand the case to the trial court for that court to correct an error in

one of Wilder's sentences.

                                    I.

     Wilder argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a

judgment of acquittal because, he says, the State's evidence was not

sufficient to sustain his convictions. In reviewing the sufficiency of the

State's evidence, this Court

     " ' "must accept as true all evidence introduced by the State,
     accord the State all legitimate inferences therefrom, and
     consider all evidence in a light most favorable to the
     prosecution." ' Ballenger v. State, 720 So. 2d 1033, 1034 (Ala.
     Crim. App. 1998) (quoting Faircloth v. State, 471 So. 2d 485,
     488 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984), aff'd, 471 So. 2d 493 (Ala. 1985)).

                                    5
CR-2023-0324

     ' "The test used in determining the sufficiency of evidence to
     sustain a conviction is whether, viewing the evidence in the
     light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational finder of
     fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a
     reasonable doubt." ' Nunn v. State, 697 So. 2d 497, 498 (Ala.
     Crim. App. 1997) (quoting O'Neal v. State, 602 So. 2d 462, 464
     (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)). ' "When there is legal evidence from
     which the jury could, by fair inference, find the defendant
     guilty, the trial court should submit [the case] to the jury, and,
     in such a case, this court will not disturb the trial court's
     decision." ' Farrior v. State, 728 So. 2d 691, 696 (Ala. Crim.
     App. 1998) (quoting Ward v. State, 557 So. 2d 848, 850 (Ala.
     Crim. App. 1990)). 'The role of appellate courts is not to say
     what the facts are. Our role ... is to judge whether the
     evidence is legally sufficient to allow submission of an issue
     for decision [by] the jury.' Ex parte Bankston, 358 So. 2d 1040,
     1042 (Ala. 1978)."

Wilson v. State, 142 So. 3d 732, 809 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).

"[C]ircumstantial evidence is not inferior to direct evidence," Reid v.

State, 131 So. 3d 635, 640 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012), and "is enough to

support a guilty verdict of the most heinous crime, provided the jury

believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty." Mogil v.

State, 225 So. 3d 211, 216 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016) (citations omitted).

     Section 13A-11-61(a) provides that "[n]o person shall shoot or

discharge a firearm, explosive or other weapon which discharges a

dangerous projectile into any occupied or unoccupied dwelling or building

                                     6
CR-2023-0324

or railroad locomotive or railroad car, aircraft, automobile, truck or

watercraft in this state."

     Section 13A-6-21 provides, in relevant part:

          "(a) A person commits the crime of assault in the second
     degree if the person does any of the following:

                 "(1) With intent to cause serious physical
           injury to another person, he or she causes serious
           physical injury to any person.

                "(2) With intent to cause physical injury to
           another person, he or she causes physical injury to
           any person by means of a deadly weapon or a
           dangerous instrument.

                "(3) He or she recklessly causes serious
           physical injury to another person by means of a
           deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument."

     In support of his sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, Wilder argues

that "[n]one of the witnesses produced by the State actually saw [him]

shoot." (Wilder's brief, p. 12.) That much is true. However, Wilder

admitted to Inv. McKee that he was at the scene of the offenses, that he

was in possession of a gun, and that it was his gun that was used to

commit the offenses. In addition, Sparks testified that she had been

fighting with Gary, who is the mother of Wilder's child, mere seconds

before the offenses occurred. Also, the only evidence indicating that

                                   7
CR-2023-0324

someone else might have committed the offenses was Wilder's self-

serving allegation that some unidentified masked person grabbed the

gun from the waistband of his pants and committed the offenses. Thus,

there was strong circumstantial evidence indicating that Wilder

committed the offenses, and his allegation regarding the unidentified

masked person did not render the State's evidence insufficient to sustain

his convictions; instead, it merely provided conflicting evidence that

created a question of fact for the jury to resolve. See Hobdy v. State, 919

So. 2d 318, 325 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) (noting that any conflicts in the

State's evidence go to the weight of the evidence and create a question of

fact for the jury to resolve); and Dotch v. State, 67 So. 3d 936, 964 (Ala.

Crim. App. 2010) (" 'Questions of identity are for the jury to resolve.' "

(quoting Powell v. State, 600 So. 2d 1085, 1086 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992))).

Thus, the trial court did not err by denying Wilder's motion for a

judgment of acquittal and submitting the charges to the jury.

                                    II.

     Wilder argues that the trial court "denied [him] his constitutionally

protected right to a full and complete defense." (Wilder's brief, p. 14.)

Specifically, Wilder argues that his "defense was that an alternate

                                    8
CR-2023-0324

suspect, namely Jaiveon Dubose, took his gun and was the person

responsible for the shooting" (id.) and that the trial court "prohibited

[defense counsel] from inquiring about law enforcement's investigation

into the alternative suspect." (Id. at 15.) However, Wilder did not raise

that claim at trial, and, thus, it was not preserved for appellate review.

Holderfield v. State, 255 So. 3d 746, 751 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017).

Moreover, we note that the trial court allowed defense counsel to question

Inv. McKee about his investigation into Dubose's potential involvement

(R. 240-42), and Wilder has not identified on appeal any questions that

the trial court prohibited defense counsel from asking.

                                   III.

     Although we affirm Wilder's convictions, we must remand the case

to the trial court for that court to correct the probationary period of

Wilder's sentence for his second-degree-assault conviction. Neither party

raises an issue regarding the probationary period, but it is well settled

that " '[m]atters concerning unauthorized sentences are jurisdictional' "

and that this Court therefore " 'may take notice of an illegal sentence at

any time.' " Harris v. State, [Ms. CR-2022-0934, Feb. 9, 2024] ___ So. 3d

___, ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2024) (quoting, respectively, Hunt v. State, 659

                                    9
CR-2023-0324

So. 2d 998, 999 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994), and Austin v. State, 864 So. 2d

1115, 1117 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003)).

     The trial court sentenced Wilder to 10 years' imprisonment for his

second-degree-assault conviction and split the sentence, ordering Wilder

to serve 2 years' imprisonment, to be followed by 5 years of supervised

probation. Second-degree assault is a Class C felony, § 13A-6-21(b), and,

at the time of Wilder's offenses, § 15-18-8(b), Ala. Code 1975, provided, in

relevant part:

           "Unless a defendant is sentenced to probation, drug
     court, or a pretrial diversion program, when a defendant is
     convicted of an offense that constitutes a Class C … felony
     offense and receives a sentence of not more than 15 years, the
     judge presiding over the case shall order that the convicted
     defendant be confined in a prison, jail-type institution,
     treatment institution, or community corrections program …
     for a period not exceeding two years in cases where the
     imposed sentence is not more than 15 years, and that the
     execution of the remainder of the sentence be suspended
     notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary and that
     the defendant be placed on probation for a period not
     exceeding three years and upon such terms as the court deems
     best."

(Emphasis added.)

     Thus, at the time of Wilder's offenses, the maximum probationary

period the trial court could impose for Wilder's second-degree-assault

conviction was three years, and, as a result, Wilder's five-year

                                    10
CR-2023-0324

probationary period is illegal. 1 We therefore remand this case to the trial

court for that court to hold a new sentencing hearing at which it imposes

a probationary period that complies with the version of § 15-18-8(b) that

was in effect at the time of Wilder's offenses. "Because the 10-year base

sentence and the 2-year confinement portion of [Wilder's] split sentence

are valid, the trial court may not change them." Dungan v. State, [Ms.

CR-2022-1135, May 5, 2023] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2023).

The trial court also may not change Wilder's 20-year sentence for his

discharging-a-firearm-into-an-occupied-vehicle conviction, which is a

valid sentence. The trial court shall take all necessary steps to ensure

that the circuit clerk makes due return to this Court within 35 days of

the date of this opinion, and the return to remand shall include the

transcript of the new sentencing hearing and a copy of the new

sentencing order.

     1Section  15-18-8 was amended effective July 1, 2023, and now
provides that, when a defendant is convicted of a Class C felony and
receives a sentence of not more than 15 years, the trial court may split
the sentence and order that the defendant "be placed on probation for a
period as determined by the court." § 15-18-8(a)(1). However, the
amended statute does not apply retroactively to Wilder's 2019 offenses.
Cosper v. State, [Ms. CR-2022-1168, Dec. 15, 2023] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ n.2
(Ala. Crim. App. 2023).

                                    11
CR-2023-0324

                                Conclusion

     Wilder has not demonstrated that any reversible error occurred in

his trial. Thus, we affirm Wilder's convictions. However, we remand the

case to the trial court for that court to hold a new sentencing hearing at

which it imposes a probationary period that complies with the version of

§ 15-18-8(b) that was in effect at the time of Wilder's offenses.

     AFFIRMED        AS   TO    CONVICTIONS;        REMANDED        WITH

INSTRUCTIONS AS TO SENTENCING.

     Windom, P.J., and Kellum, Cole, and Minor, JJ., concur.

                                    12