Brown v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-01393-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-01393-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-18-2007 Opinion Author: Diaz, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Extra work - Delay damages - Indemnification - Additur - Quantum meruit claim - Section 11-55-5 - Section 31-5-57 - Money paid into registry - M.R.A.P. 8 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-28-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: Count I: Conviction of shooting into an occupied dwelling and sentence of ten (10) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Sentence in Count I shall run concurrently with the sentence in Count III and consecutive to the sentences in Counts II, IV and V. Count II: Conviction of burglary of a house and sentence of ten (10) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Sentence in Count II shall run consecutive to the sentences in Counts I and III and also consecutive to the sentences in Counts IV and V. Count III: Conviction of aggravated assault with a weapon and sentence of twenty (20) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Sentence in Count IIl shall run concurrently with the sentence in Count I and consecutive to the sentences in Counts II, IV and V. Count IV: Conviction of armed robbery and sentence of twenty (20) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Sentence in Count IV shall run consecutive to the sentences in Counts I and III and also consecutive to the sentences in Counts II and V. Count V: Conviction of kidnaping and sentence of thirty (30) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Sentence in Count V shall run consecutive to the sentences in Counts l and III and and also consecutive to the sentences in Counts II and IV. District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 05-1-110CR(D) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Carlos Brown |
DONALD W. BOYKIN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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: | Contract - Extra work - Delay damages - Indemnification - Additur - Quantum meruit claim - Section 11-55-5 - Section 31-5-57 - Money paid into registry - M.R.A.P. 8 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Tupelo Redevelopment Agency entered into a contract with the Gray Corporation, Inc. for the construction of the Tupelo Fairgrounds Redevelopment Project. Gray was bonded by the Hartford Fire and Insurance Company. The original price contemplated by the contract was $1,725,347.08 and consisted of three components: Component A, water and sewer improvements; Component B, site work; and Component C, electrical, CATV, telephone and duct system. Allen & Hoshall provided the electrical plan and specifications to TRA for Component C of the Project. Jesco, Inc. was hired to serve as Construction Manager, and Tupelo Water & Light was hired to inspect and approve the Component C work. For the Component C work, Gray entered into an oral subcontract with Ronald Ragland, Sr., d/b/a Ragland Engineering and Ragland Construction, whereby Ragland agreed to perform some of the layout work contemplated by Gray’s contract with TRA, and to construct portions of the Project. After some problems with the plan were noticed, TRA, Jesco and Allen & Hoshall enlisted Ragland’s help to properly identify quantities of work and the scope of the Project requirements. Because these revisions required extra work on the part of Gray and Ragland, TRA, through its representative Jesco, promised Gray and Ragland a future change order. Gray obtained change order number 1, as required by the contract terms with TRA, for modifications to the electrical plan and specifications to Component C. Additionally, Gray requested and received two more change orders, number 2 and number 3. The three change orders brought about net additions of $283,209.20 to the original contract terms. Gray and Ragland proceeded with the contemplated work on the Project without receiving any additional change orders for any extra work or time delays associated with Component C. After Ragland completed the work and requested payment from Gray, which was never received, Ragland made a ore tenus motion to intervene in a suit which already had been filed. The court granted the motion to intervene, and Ragland filed an intervention complaint against Gray and Hartford. Gray filed a Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint and to File Additional Claims Against the Third Party Defendant, TRA, which the court granted. Gray then filed its third-party complaint. Gray filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Third-Party Complaint and To File Additional Claims Against the Third-Party Defendant, Allen & Hoshall Ltd. Architects Engineers, which the court denied. Ragland filed a Motion to Amend Intervention Complaint, alleging that discovery had been conducted, and, based on that discovery, Ragland desired to seek punitive damages against Gray and Hartford. The court denied the motion. Ragland filed another Motion to Amend Intervention Complaint based on Ragland’s assertion that the amount of damages sought should be increased from $534,454.11 to $1,339,658.63. TRA filed a Motion to Enforce Partial Release and Settlement Agreement detailing an agreement between TRA and Gray, in which Gray released TRA from any further liability except the exact claim for equitable adjustment amounting to $771,912.91, which fixed the claimed amount for equitable adjustment relating to Ragland at $458,178.00. TRA thus claimed that if Gray was found liable to Ragland for an amount exceeding $458,178.00, TRA was not liable for the increased amount. TRA also moved for summary judgment on the ground that Gray had failed to come forward with elemental proof to sustain claims for equitable adjustment to the contract. The judge granted Ragland’s Motion to Amend Intervention Complaint, and Ragland filed its Amended Intervention Complaint against Gray and Hartford. Following the trial, the jury returned verdicts based on special interrogatories submitted by the trial judge. Specifically, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Ragland and against Gray in the amount of $850,551.32, of which amount Gray and Hartford were found jointly and severally liable for $619,173.32. The jury also rendered a verdict for Gray against TRA in the amount of $258,118.00. The court later entered an order reflecting that TRA had paid its judgment in favor of Gray in the amount of $258,118 plus all incurred interest. This payment thus satisfied and cancelled the judgment entered against TRA and in favor of Gray. In addition, satisfaction of the judgment by TRA removed the lien upon all of TRA’s property, real, personal or mixed. Ragland and Hartford entered into a Full, Final, Absolute Release and Assignment whereby Hartford paid Ragland $475,000 and assigned all of its rights in and to the funds deposited with the Court by TRA. That same day, Ragland filed a Motion to Require the Circuit Clerk To Pay Ragland the Funds TRA Paid into Court. TRA filed a Motion to Stay Execution of Money Judgment. The court dismissed Hartford with prejudice as it had fully paid its judgment. Additionally, the circuit court entered an Amended Final Judgment which reflected the circuit court’s decision concerning the amount of attorneys’ fees to be assessed against Gray and Hartford, as well as fixing the date from which post judgment interest would begin to run. As a result, Ragland’s judgment against Gray was increased to $1,216,605.20, of which $892,676.00 was the joint and several obligation of Gray and Hartford. The court denied Ragland’s Motion to Require the Circuit Clerk to Pay Ragland the Funds TRA Paid into Court and granted TRA’s Motion to Stay Execution, allowing TRA to satisfy the requirement of posting a bond equal to 125% of the judgment amount by the posting of an appeal bond equal to 25% of said amount. TRA appeals, and Gray and Ragland cross-appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Brown argues that there was insufficient evidence to support a verdict, because only another man meets the description of the kidnaper; only one intruder had a gun and the other man was the only one seen with a gun; the only direct testimony implicating Brown was substantially impeached; and the only person the assailants attempted to rob was someone other than the victim. The state presented sufficient evidence that would point to Brown as the attacker. Brown’s co-defendant testified that Brown was the one who shot the lock, kicked open the door, attacked one of the victims and kidnaped another. There was testimony that both men, including Brown, had guns. With regard to the testimony given by his accomplice, the testimony was corroborated by at least two other witnesses. Where there is slight corroborative evidence, the accomplice’s testimony is likewise sufficient to sustain the verdict. While the jury heard relevant evidence that would impeach the accomplice’s testimony, matters regarding the weight and credibility of the evidence are to be resolved by the jury. The victims all testified that the assailants were demanding money. It was reasonable to conclude that the two men would have taken the money from any one of the occupants. Thus, the state presented sufficient evidence to support convictions of kidnaping, burglary, aggravated assault, attempted armed robbery, and shooting into a dwelling. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
