Riley v. State
Docket Number: | 2007-KM-00953-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00953-COA ; 2007-CT-00953-SCT ; 2007-CT-00953-SCT |
|
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-27-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of automobile - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-18-2007 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Helfrich Disposition: CONVICTION OF BURGLARY OF AN AUTOMOBILE AND SENTENCE OF SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers Case Number: 06-660-CR |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
Appellant: | ROY RODERICK RILEY, JR. A/K/A ROY ROGERS RILEY |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF,
GAY L. POLK-PAYTON |
|
|
Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
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 of automobile - Sufficiency of evidence |
Summary of the Facts: | Roy Riley, Jr. was convicted of burglary of an automobile. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to seven years. He appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Riley argues that the State failed to present any evidence showing that the automobile contained anything of value and that there were no facts introduced at trial from which a jury could reasonably infer the requisite intent to steal. While neither an inventory of the automobile, nor other proof of its contents were entered into evidence, it can be inferred from the testimony at trial that the automobile contained items sufficient to satisfy section 97-17-33. An inference of the intent to steal may arise from proof of the breaking and entering. It is uncontested that Riley broke into and entered the automobile. When confronted by the owner of the vehicle, Riley neither apologized for being inside the vehicle, nor explained that he thought it belonged to someone else. Instead, he refused to exit the vehicle and informed the owner that he was taking the automobile. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court