Varnado v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00591-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-19-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Conspiracy to commit armed robbery & Armed robbery - Sufficiency of evidence - Hearsay - Miranda rights Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-19-2010 Appealed from: Marion County Circuit Court Judge: Prentiss Harrell Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ARMED ROBBERY, AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS, AND COUNTS II, III, IV, V, VI, AND VII, ARMED ROBBERY, AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS FOR EACH COUNT, WITH THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS I, IV, V, VI, AND VII TO RUN CONCURRENTLY, AND WITH THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS II AND III TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO EACH OTHER AND CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCES FOR THE REMAINING COUNTS, FOR A TOTAL OF FORTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Haldon J. Kittrell Case Number: K08-036-H |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Carlos Varnado |
BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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: | Conspiracy to commit armed robbery & Armed robbery - Sufficiency of evidence - Hearsay - Miranda rights |
| Summary of the Facts: | Carlos Varnado was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and six counts of armed robbery. Varnado was ultimately sentenced to serve forty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Varnado argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of armed robbery of the victim Earnest Ratliff. He claims that the carrying away of the property of another was not proved at trial. Ratliff testified that no money was taken from him because he had lost all of his money in the dice game. It is well-settled case law in the state of Mississippi that a conviction based on armed robbery does not require that there be an actual taking. The crime of armed robbery is complete at the attempt. Varnado attempted to take property from Ratliff and would have succeeded had Ratliff not lost all of his money in the dice game. Issue 2: Hearsay Varnado argues that the trial court erred by allowing hearsay testimony during trial. At issue is Officer Roy Clingon’s testimony that he was told by Officer Doug Barnes that Vivian Alexander had received a phone call informing her that Varnado had shot someone. Varnado argues that this testimony unfairly bolstered Officer Clingon’s testimony and that his right to cross-examination was diluted. It is clear from the record that the State offered the statements to show how Varnado’s name was brought to their attention as a possible suspect and not that Varnado had shot someone. Thus, the circuit judge did not abuse his discretion by allowing such statements at trial. Issue 3: Miranda rights Varnado argues that he did not have the requisite mental capacity to make a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights before he gave a confession to the police. The testimony of Officer Barnes was offered by the State. Officer Barnes, along with two other officers, gave Varnado his Miranda rights and interviewed him the morning after the incident. Officer Barnes also testified that the Miranda waiver that Varnado had signed consisted of two parts. The first part inquired as to whether Varnado understood the rights. The second part inquired whether Varnado, being mindful of the results of waiving his rights, waived these rights. Varnado answered in the affirmative to both questions and gave a verbal statement to the officers. Based on the evidence presented at this hearing, there is sufficient evidence to support the circuit judge’s finding that the waiver was voluntarily and knowingly made. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
