Tugle v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00171-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00171-COA ; 2010-CT-00171-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-14-2010 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Attempted armed robbery, Felon in possession of weapon & Felony fleeing - Identification instruction - Discovery - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-17-2009 Appealed from: COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: KENNETH L. THOMAS Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, ATTEMPTED ARMED ROBBERY, AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FOUR YEARS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT III AND CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCE IN COUNT IV; COUNT III, FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, AND SENTENCED TO EIGHT YEARS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I AND CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCE IN COUNT IV; AND COUNT IV, FELONY FLEEING, AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS I AND III, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: BRENDA FAY MITCHELL Case Number: 2009-0007 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Dewayne Ladale Tugle |
GEORGE T. HOLMES |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi; | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND | ||
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: | Attempted armed robbery, Felon in possession of weapon & Felony fleeing - Identification instruction - Discovery - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dewayne Tugle was convicted of attempted armed robbery, felon in possession of a weapon, and felony fleeing. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Identification instruction Tugle argues that the trial court erred in refusing his proposed jury instruction on identification. Tugle argues that because his convictions relied upon the testimony and identification of witnesses who had previously failed to identify him as the perpetrator, and in fact identified other individuals, he was entitled to have the jury instructed with his instruction. A defendant is only entitled to such an instruction if requested and if he is identified as the guilty party by, at most, one witness to his alleged crime. Although it is true that the victims failed to correctly identify him prior to trial, they did in fact testify that Tugle was the individual who had attempted to arm rob them. Further, through cross-examination, the jury was made aware of the pretrial misidentification. Issue 2: Discovery The victim failed to identify Tugle in a pretrial photographic lineup, and she did not identify him at court during Tugle’s first trial. However, she did make an in-court identification at his second trial. Tugle objected and argued that her identification amounted to a discovery violation. The court granted Tugle’s defense counsel time to review the witness’s former testimony. Additionally, Tugle’s defense attorney effectively abandoned his objection based upon the prosecution’s alleged discovery violation. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Tugle argues that his convictions for attempted armed robbery and felon in possession of a firearm were not supported by the weight of the evidence. The jury was presented with testimony and evidence that Tugle attempted to feloniously take, money from a victim, against his will, by putting the victim in fear of immediate injury by the exhibition of a deadly weapon, i.e., the gun. Further, Tugle admitted he was a prior-convicted felon. Tugle also argues that the evidence presented to the jury was lacking, as a matter of law, to sustain a conviction for felony fleeing. The only evidence of the chase came from the testimonies of two police officers. The evidence presented was legally sufficient to support the conviction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
