Gary Perryman v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2000-KA-00686-COA
GARY PERRYMAN
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
04/07/2000
HON. LAMAR PICKARD
COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
CHARLES E. MILLER
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
ALEXANDER C. MARTIN
CRIMINAL - FELONY
04/07/2000: BURGLARY: SENTENCED TO SERVE A
TERM OF 18 YEARS IN THE MDOC
AFFIRMED - 10/16/2001
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
11/6/2001
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., IRVING, AND MYERS, JJ.
MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Gary Perryman was convicted of burglary by the Copiah County Circuit Court, Honorable Lamar
Pickard presiding. Perryman was sentenced to eighteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections. A motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was filed and summarily denied by the
trial court. From the denial of that motion, Perryman appeals raising the following issues:
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR A JNOV;
2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING EVIDENCE OF DRUG
USE BY DEFENDANT TO BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL; AND
3. WHETHER THE EIGHTEEN YEAR SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT
IS EXCESSIVE.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶2. During the morning hours of November 1, 1999, David Pruitt's residence was burglarized. A cigarette
lighter with David Pruitt's name inscribed on it, a jewelry box with several antique coins, two one-ounce
silver bars, a Celtic cross, a sharp-toothed knife, and approximately $5,300 were taken from Pruitt's
residence. Pruitt stated at trial that he left home that morning about 8:50 a.m. and returned that same
morning between 9:15 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. Pruitt also stated that after he ascertained that his house had
been broken into, he contacted the police at approximately 10:00 that morning. Upon arriving at the scene,
the police officer responding to Pruitt's call observed Perryman leaving the vicinity of the crime. Because the
officer knew that Perryman frequented this area, the officer followed Perryman to inquire if he had seen
anything. Perryman traveled to his friend's trailer and even though his friend was not at home, Perryman
entered the trailer remaining inside for approximately two minutes. As Perryman was exiting the trailer, the
police officer approached him and asked whether Perryman knew anything about a burglary. Perryman
responded that he might and told the officer that a white boy was hiding inside the trailer. The officer
entered the trailer to search for the white boy. The officer did not find any evidence of a white boy but did
find Pruitt's cigarette lighter with his name engraved on it behind the couch as well as $5,100 lying in the
open freezer compartment of the refrigerator. A subsequent search of Perryman yielded the remaining $200
taken in the burglary. While arresting Perryman, the officer noticed a white, chalky substance on Perryman's
hands and shirt. The same white, chalky substance was found on the frame of the door that was forced
open in Pruitt's house.
¶3. At trial all the foregoing facts were established. Perryman testified on his own behalf and denied the
allegations. Additionally, defense witnesses testified that they saw a white guy in the area of Pruitt's house
and the trailer Perryman had traveled to prior to being detained. On cross- examination the State asked
Perryman whether he had any substance abuse problems. Perryman's attorney failed to object to this
question and Perryman answered in the affirmative stating that he smoked crack cocaine. The trial
continued and Perryman was ultimately found guilty of burglary and sentenced to eighteen years in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Perryman filed a motion for a Judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) which the trial court denied. From the denial of that motion, this appeal
results.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL ANALYSIS
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR A JNOV.
¶4. Perryman first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a JNOV. Motions for JNOV
challenge the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Tran v. State, 785 So. 2d 1112, 1116 (¶8) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2001). The evidence presented against Perryman was wholly circumstantial. In cases where the
evidence presented is wholly circumstantial, "the State must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence." Stewart v. State,
760 So. 2d 810, 813 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). In analyzing the evidence, this Court must consider all
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Murphy v. State, 566 So. 2d 1201, 1204
(Miss. 1990).
¶5. The State showed that Perryman entered and later exited from a trailer whose owner was not at home.
The police found $5,100 lying in the open freezer along with a cigarette lighter with David Pruitt's name
inscribed on it in the same trailer. The police found $200 on Perryman's person. The police did not find a
white guy in the trailer as Perryman stated they would, nor did the police find any evidence of a white guy
having been in the trailer. Finally, the police found and the State presented to the jury that Perryman had a
white, chalky substance on his hands and shirt and that the same white, chalky substance was found on the
door forced open by the burglar of Pruitt's house. It is clear that when taken as a whole, the evidence
offered by the State against Perryman, while circumstantial in nature, rises to the necessary level to exclude
every reasonable doubt and every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of Perryman.
Stewart, 760 So. 2d at 813 (¶9). Perryman's first issue is, therefore, without merit.
2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING EVIDENCE OF DRUG
USE BY DEFENDANT TO BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL.
¶6. Perryman next argues that evidence of his drug use should not have been admitted at trial. Upon a
thorough examination of the record of this case, this Court finds that the questions inquiring into any
substance abuse by Perryman were not objected to at trial. This Court cannot consider an issue not
properly preserved at the trial level. Haddox v. State, 636 So. 2d 1229, 1240 (Miss. 1994). Perryman
attempts to rely on plain error to raise this issue on appeal. The plain error rule applies "only when it affects
a defendant's substantive/fundamental rights" and "the error must have resulted in a manifest miscarriage of
justice." Tate v. State, 784 So. 2d 208, 219 (¶54) (Miss. 2001).
¶7. During his direct examination, Perryman admitted having drunk two beers during the morning hours of
the day of the burglary. The prosecution picked up on this and inquired on cross-examination whether
Perryman had a substance abuse problem. The defendant cannot later complain of evidence that he
introduced at trial. Fleming v. State, 604 So. 2d 280, 289 (Miss. 1992). Because Perryman brought this
evidence up in his direct examination, he cannot complain when it is used to his disadvantage later in the
case. Because the evidence does not affect Perryman's substantive rights, this is clearly not a case of plain
error and as this issue was not preserved at trial, it is procedurally barred from review by this Court and
therefore may not be considered. Harris v. Lewis, 755 So. 2d 1199, 1204 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
3. WHETHER THE EIGHTEEN YEAR SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT
IS EXCESSIVE.
¶8. Perryman's final contention is that the eighteen year sentence imposed against him is excessive.
Perryman was sentenced pursuant to the dictates of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-23 (Rev. 1996) which
provides for a sentence of "not less than three years and not more than twenty-five years." It is well
established that a sentence imposed by a trial court that is within the limits provided by the statute is to be
upheld. Carter v. State, 450 So. 2d 67, 68 (Miss. 1984). This rule gives deference to the determination
made by the legislature of the proper sentences to be imposed for statutory crimes. Barnwell v. State, 567
So. 2d 215, 222 (Miss. 1990). Because the sentence imposed by the trial court was within the parameters
provided in the statute, this Court finds that the eighteen year sentence imposed against Perryman is not
excessive and this issue is without merit.
CONCLUSION
¶9. The issues raised by Perryman in this appeal are without merit. The evidence presented in this case
while circumstantial in nature was sufficient for the trial court to convict Perryman of the crime of burglary.
The questions posed to Perryman on cross-examination were the product of evidence offered during his
direct examination and were not objected to at trial and therefore not preserved. The eighteen year
sentence imposed by the trial court was within the statutory limits provided by the legislature and is upheld.
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COPIAH COUNTY OF CONVICTION
OF BURGLARY AND SENTENCE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO COPIAH COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
