Cheeks v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01537-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-KA-01537-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-04-2003 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary - Other crimes’ evidence - Sufficiency of evidence - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-24-2000 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: AUTOMOBILE BURGLARY: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF 7 YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC AND THE DEFENDANT SHALL PAY COURT COSTS, STATUTORY FEES AND ASSESSMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $323. District Attorney: John H. Emfinger Case Number: 2000-476 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kenyatta Donta Cheeks |
AZKI SHAH |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Burglary - Other crimes’ evidence - Sufficiency of evidence - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kenyatta Cheeks was convicted of burglary of an automobile and was sentenced to seven years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Other crimes’ evidence Cheeks argues that the court erred in allowing testimony regarding evidence that Cheeks was in possession of a stolen vehicle with an altered vehicle identification number when he was arrested. Not only did the defense fail to object to the State’s cross-examination of Cheeks regarding the altered VIN, but defense counsel opened the door for such questioning by the questions asked on direct examination. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Cheeks argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support a conviction for burglary of an automobile, because the State’s case was wholly circumstantial. Four factors to consider when analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence to support an inference of burglary include the temporal proximity of the possession to the crime to be inferred; the number or percentage of the fruits of the crime possessed; the nature of the possession in terms of whether there is an attempt at concealment or any other evidence of guilty knowledge; and whether an explanation is given and whether that explanation is plausible or demonstrably false. Cheeks was shown to have possession of the CD player a few hours before the burglary was reported; the only item reported stolen was the CD player and Cheeks was stopped with the CD player in his vehicle; there was no attempt by Cheeks to conceal the CD player; and the State's evidence proved that the offered explanation by Cheeks regarding the player was demonstrably false. These factors support the inference of burglary. Issue 3: Circumstantial evidence instruction Cheeks argues that the court erred in refusing to grant a circumstantial evidence instruction, because the State did not produce a single witness to testify that he was the one who broke into the automobile and there was no direct evidence by way of confession. Circumstantial evidence instructions are only proper when the State’s case is based wholly on circumstantial evidence. In this case, an officer was an eyewitness to much of Cheeks's suspicious activity and confronted Cheeks essentially while this activity was transpiring. This testimony is direct evidence. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Cheeks argues that his counsel was ineffective, because his counsel opened the door as to the altered VIN and stolen vehicle and pursued this matter to Cheeks's detriment. To prove his claim, he must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. The presentation by Cheeks’s counsel of the testimony was clearly within the gambit of trial strategy. In addition, he cannot show he was deprived of a fair trial, because there was very strong evidence which supports his guilt. Cheeks also argues that his counsel failed to pursue a hearing on new and material evidence showing Cheeks purchased the CD player. This evidence cannot be characterized as new and material evidence, since Cheeks could have brought forth that evidence at trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
