Roberts v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-02331-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-02331-COA ; 2005-CT-02331-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-05-2006 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: CONVICTED OF COUNTS I, IV AND V OF EMBEZZLEMENT AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS ON EACH COUNT IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, EACH COUNT TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH EACH OTHER, WITH SAID SENTENCE BEING SUSPENDED, CONDITIONED UPON ONE YEAR OF HOUSE ARREST FOLLOWED BY FOUR YEARS SUPERVISED PROBATION AND PAY $20,601.95 RESTITUTION TO SOUTHLAND OIL COMPANY |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Embezzlement - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-26-2005 Appealed from: YAZOO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: JANNIE M. LEWIS Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNTS I, IV AND V OF EMBEZZLEMENT AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS ON EACH COUNT IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, EACH COUNT TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH EACH OTHER, WITH SAID SENTENCE BEING SUSPENDED, CONDITIONED UPON ONE YEAR OF HOUSE ARREST FOLLOWED BY FOUR YEARS SUPERVISED PROBATION AND PAY $20,601.95 RESTITUTION TO SOUTHLAND OIL COMPANY District Attorney: JAMES H. POWELL, III Case Number: 24-9424 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kenneth Roberts |
ROBERT GEORGE CLARK, JOHN W. CHRISTOPHER, JEFFREY ELLIS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: DESHUN TERRELL MARTIN |
|
|
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: | Embezzlement - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kenneth Roberts was convicted of three counts of embezzlement. He was sentenced to five years on each count. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Roberts argues that the evidence was insufficient. Roberts and Southland Oil Company entered into a contract in which Roberts would lease Southland’s bulk operating plant in Yazoo City. The parties also entered into a “Bulk Plant Operator’s Agreement” which gave the operator, Roberts, the right to market and sell various petroleum products owned by Southland in return for a monthly commission. The agreement stated that Roberts could not extend credit on Southland’s accounts to customers who had not been approved for credit by Southland. Any losses caused by Roberts through negligence or bad business practices were deducted at the end of the month from his commission. During the course of the lease, Roberts would extend credit to some customers who had not been approved for credit by Southland or would extend additional credit to customers over their approved limit. When payment was received from these customers Roberts would record it as a cash sale and report it to Southland. Southland knew of this practice. If the accounts came up short at the end of the month, Southland would deduct the deficiency from Roberts’s commission. Southland became aggrieved when Roberts’ commission could not cover the deficiencies. Embezzlement requires the wrongful appropriation or conversion of property where the original taking was lawful or with the consent of the owner. The State has shown no attempt by Roberts to wrongfully convert Southland’s products to his own use. Roberts made some bad business decisions by extending credit to customers who could not pay and is liable to Southland for those debts, but Roberts did not intend to embezzle or appropriate Southland’s products to his own use. The deficiencies in payment on credit by the non-approved customers were deducted by agreement from Roberts’s commission. Southland did not complain until Roberts got in over his head and the debt accrued to more than could be covered by his commissions. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence has not been shown to sustain a conviction for embezzlement. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
