Dewayne Price v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-KA-00624-COA
DEWAYNE PRICE
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
03/18/2008
HON. JOSEPH H. LOPER JR.
ATTALA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NEYSHA LAROSE SANDERS
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BILLY L. GORE
DOUG EVANS
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF GRAND LARCENY AND
SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER
TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
AFFIRMED – 09/15/2009
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., IRVING AND BARNES, JJ.
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Dewayne Price was convicted of grand larceny by an Attala County jury. Thereafter,
the Attala County Circuit Court sentenced him as a habitual offender to ten years in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Feeling aggrieved, Price appeals and
asserts that there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict and that the verdict is against
the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
¶2.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
FACTS
¶3.
On August 8, 2007, Price, Cordarron Buchannon, and David Holmes1 were indicted
for “wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and intentionally tak[ing] and carry[ing] away” on July
13, 2007, a green Kawasaki four-wheeler and a red Honda four-wheeler owned by Michael
Kuhn. In March 2008, Price went to trial and was convicted of grand larceny.
¶4.
During trial, the State called several witnesses to testify about the events surrounding
the theft of the four-wheelers. Kuhn testified that the night the four-wheelers were stolen,
they were stored on his father-in-law’s property in Attala County. According to Kuhn, the
perpetrators cut the property fence in two places in order to get to the four-wheelers.
¶5.
Buchannon testified that on the day of the theft, Holmes called him and told him
where some four-wheelers were located. Buchannon stated that later that day, Holmes took
him to the exact location. Buchannon further stated that around 11 p.m., he, Holmes, and
Price used Buchannon’s truck to go to Attala County and steal the four-wheelers. According
to Buchannon, once they got to the property where the four-wheelers were located, they had
to cut through the property fence to get to the four-wheelers. Buchannon testified that Price
helped push the four-wheelers to the truck and that Price helped load the four-wheelers onto
the truck. Buchannon stated that they took one four-wheeler to his house and the other one
to Price’s house.
¶6.
1
Randy Blakely, an investigator with the Attala County Sheriff’s Department, testified
It appears from the record that Buchannon is Price’s friend, while Holmes is Price’s cousin.
2
that the Department had received reports of four-wheelers being taken illegally from Attala
County to Holmes County. Deputy Blakely further testified that he learned a four-wheeler
was located at Price’s house in Holmes County. According to Deputy Blakely, when he
arrived at Price’s house, he saw a green four-wheeler in a wooded area about thirty to forty
yards across the street from the house. Deputy Blakely further stated that he noticed that the
ignition was missing from the four-wheeler. Deputy Blakely testified that he ran the vehicle
identification number on the four-wheeler, which revealed that the four-wheeler belonged
to Kuhn.
¶7.
Holmes testified that he, Buchannon, and Price went to Attala County and stole two
four-wheelers. Holmes stated that Price stayed in the truck and did not help load the fourwheelers onto Buchannon’s truck. Holmes further stated that he kept the red four-wheeler
and that he did not know what happened to the green four-wheeler.
¶8.
Curtis Price, Price’s brother, testified that he saw Price riding a green four-wheeler
around the time of the theft. However, Curtis stated that he believed that the four-wheeler
belonged to his cousin’s boyfriend. Eric Price, who is also Price’s brother, stated that in July
2007, he saw Price and his cousin’s boyfriend riding two four-wheelers, one was blue.
However, Eric was impeached with a statement that he had given earlier to police in which
he said that Price, Buchannon, and Holmes came to his house with three four-wheelers and
that the green four-wheeler was left at the house. Faced with his prior statement, Eric
admitted making the statement but explained that he thought at that time the green fourwheeler was one of the ones that was stolen but later discovered that it belonged to his
cousin’s boyfriend.
3
¶9.
At this juncture in the trial, the State rested. Price made a motion for a directed
verdict, but the circuit court denied the motion. During his case-in-chief, Price called his
girlfriend, Cassie Wright. Wright testified that she and Price were on their home telephones
talking to each other from six o’clock in the evening on the day the four-wheelers were stolen
until four o’clock the following morning. Thereafter, Price rested and did not renew his
motion for directed verdict.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence
¶10.
Our supreme court has discussed the various means by which a criminal defendant can
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him:
A criminal defendant has several procedural vehicles available to him for
challenging the sufficiency of the case for the prosecution–the motion for
directed verdict made at the end of the case for the prosecution, the request for
a peremptory instruction at the end of all the evidence or the motion for a
directed verdict at that point, or finally a motion for judgment of acquittal
notwithstanding the verdict.
Hodges v. State, 743 So. 2d 319, 325 (¶36) (Miss. 1999) (citation omitted). “When [an
appellate court] reviews a denial of a directed verdict, it applies a de novo standard of
review.” Branch v. State, 998 So. 2d 411, 416 (¶18) (Miss. 2008) (citing Gilmer v. State, 955
So. 2d 829, 833 (¶5) (Miss. 2007)). “In reviewing a denial of a motion for a directed verdict,
if we determine the evidence points in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense
such that a reasonable juror could not have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, we must reverse the conviction.” Id. (quoting Coleman v. State, 947 So. 2d 878, 881
(¶11) (Miss. 2006)).
4
¶11.
In his first assignment of error, Price argues that the circuit court erred in denying his
motion for a directed verdict made at the conclusion of the State’s case and that the State
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved in taking any property from
the victim on July 13, 2007. He asserts that the only evidence that led to his conviction was
the testimony of his alleged accomplice, Buchannon. Price correctly notes that the testimony
of an accomplice is to be viewed with “great caution and suspicion.” Walton v. State, 998
So. 2d 971, 977 (¶17) (Miss. 2008) (quoting Strahan v. State, 729 So. 2d 800, 805 (¶20)
(Miss. 1998)). Price also correctly notes that only slight corroboration of an accomplice’s
testimony is required to sustain a conviction. Hathorne v. State, 759 So. 2d 1127, 1133 (¶31)
(Miss. 1999). Price interprets Hathorne to mean that where there is no corroboration,
accomplice testimony is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Price concludes that
Buchannon’s testimony was uncorroborated and that, as a result, his conviction should be
reversed.
¶12.
In response, the State argues that Price waived his motion for a directed verdict made
at the close of the State’s case when Price introduced evidence on his own behalf.
Specifically, the State argues that because Price did not renew his motion for a directed
verdict at the close of all evidence, he is procedurally barred from challenging the sufficiency
of the State’s evidence.
¶13.
Generally, “[i]f a defendant puts on evidence in his own defense after the denial of his
motion for directed verdict, he waives his challenge to the sufficiency of the State’s evidence
up to that point.” Robinson v. State, 749 So. 2d 1054, 1058-59 (¶13) (Miss. 1999) (citing
Stringer v. State, 557 So. 2d 796, 797 (Miss. 1990)). Price did not renew his motion for a
5
directed verdict at the end of all evidence. He filed a motion for a new trial. In the body of
the motion, he saw a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict; however, in support
of his contention that he should be granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, he simply
stated that the court erred in overruling “motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of the
State’s case.” In light of this fact, Price is procedurally barred from challenging the
sufficiency of the State’s evidence. Accordingly, we decline to address this issue.
2. Weight of the Evidence
¶14.
The standard of review for claims that a conviction is against the overwhelming
weight of the evidence is stated as follows:
[An appellate court] must accept as true the evidence which supports the
verdict and will reverse only when convinced that the circuit court has abused
its discretion in failing to grant a new trial. A new trial will not be ordered
unless the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence
that to allow it to stand would sanction unconscionable injustice.
Valmain v. State, 5 So. 3d 1079, 1086 (¶30) (Miss. 2009) (quoting Todd v. State, 806 So. 2d
1086, 1090 (¶11) (Miss. 2001)). “There is a presumption that the judgment of the trial court
is correct, and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate some reversible error to [an
appellate court].” Id. (quoting King v. State, 857 So. 2d 702, 731 (¶104) (Miss. 2003)).
¶15.
Price asserts that the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence
because the only incriminating evidence presented by the State – Buchannon’s testimony –
was uncorroborated and inconsistent. We disagree.
¶16.
First, we find that Buchannon’s testimony regarding the events surrounding the theft
of the four-wheelers was corroborated by several witnesses during the trial.
Like
Buchannon, Kuhn testified that the fence surrounding the Attala County property where the
6
four-wheelers were stored was cut. Deputy Blakely’s testimony that he found a four-wheeler
thirty to forty yards from Price’s house corroborated Buchannon’s testimony that one of the
four-wheelers was left there. Buchannon and Holmes stated that Price went with them to the
Attala County property where the four-wheelers were located. Further, Eric and Curtis stated
that they saw Price riding a green four-wheeler after the theft had occurred.
¶17.
Second, “[i]t is a well-settled principle of law that issues of weight and credibility of
[a] witness[’s] testimony are within the sole province of the jury as fact-finder.” King v.
State, 798 So. 2d 1258, 1262 (¶14) (Miss. 2001) (citing Humphrey v. State, 759 So. 2d 368,
387 (¶60) (Miss. 2000) (overruled on other grounds)). “The jury has a much better vantage
point to view and assess the tone, mannerisms, and disposition of witnesses.” Id.
¶18.
Here, the jury heard all of the witnesses’ versions of events surrounding the theft of
the four-wheelers. Buchannon’s testimony, along with the testimony of the other State’s
witnesses, provides ample evidence to support Price’s conviction. Therefore, this issue is
without merit.
¶19. THE JUDGMENT OF THE ATTALA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONVICTION OF GRAND LARCENY AND SENTENCE AS A HABITUAL
OFFENDER OF TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO ATTALA COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.