J.C. Ramsey v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-KA-01425-COA
J.C. RAMSEY A/K/A HENRY EARL RAMSEY
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
08/01/2007
HON. ROBERT B. HELFRICH
FORREST COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
LESLIE S. LEE
GLENN S. SWARTZFAGER
GAY L. POLK-PAYTON
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD
JON MARK WEATHERS
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF COUNT II, AUTO
BURGLARY, AND SENTENCED TO SEVEN
YEARS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER; COUNT
III, AUTO BURGLARY, AND SENTENCED TO
SEVEN YEARS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER;
AND COUNT IV, GRAND LARCENY, AND
SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS AS A
HABITUAL OFFENDER, ALL IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH ALL
SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY AND
TO BE SERVED WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY
OF PROBATION OR PAROLE
AFFIRMED - 07/29/2008
BEFORE LEE, P.J., CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
CHANDLER, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
J.C. Ramsey was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Forrest County of one count of
grand larceny and two counts of auto burglary. The circuit court sentenced him as a habitual
offender to serve ten years for the grand larceny conviction and seven years for each of the auto
burglary convictions, with all sentences to run consecutively in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections. Ramsey now appeals those convictions and sentences, arguing that the
circuit court erred by refusing to find that he had presented a prima facie Batson challenge when the
State excluded three African American jurors.
¶2.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶3.
On the night of February 18, 2006, and during the early morning of February 19, items were
stolen from three vehicles in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Someone broke into Pam Pearson’s vehicle
and stole a number of videotapes, and at the same apartment complex, someone broke a window in
Justin Harvison’s car and stole his car stereo. A third victim, Chris Bass, noticed a man in the back
of his work truck, but when he went outside to check, the man was gone. However, the man had
stolen a chainsaw and some other tools from Bass’s truck.
¶4.
While police were responding to the call from Bass, another officer noticed Ramsey in the
Wal-Mart parking lot, and Ramsey fit the suspect’s description. Upon seeing the officer, Ramsey
left the parking lot, but the officer stopped him and noticed a chainsaw and tools in the back of his
truck that fit the description of those stolen from Bass. Police also found the stolen videotapes and
car stereo in the same truck, which itself turned out to be stolen.
¶5.
Ramsey was indicted on two counts of grand larceny, one for the theft of the pickup truck
and one for the theft of the chainsaw and tools. He was also indicted on two counts of burglary of
an automobile for the thefts of the videotapes and the car stereo.
2
¶6.
Trial was held in the Circuit Court of Forrest County. Following voir dire, after the State
tendered the first potential jurors, Ramsey raised a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S.
79 (1986), alleging that the State had improperly excluded three African American jurors with its
first four peremptory challenges. The circuit court found no merit to the challenge, reasoning that
jury selection had only just begun and that Ramsey had not put forth a prima facie case of
discrimination. At no point during the remainder of the jury selection, nor following its conclusion,
did Ramsey raise another Batson challenge.
¶7.
The jury failed to return a verdict on the count of grand larceny for the theft of the pickup
truck, so the circuit court declared a mistrial as to that count. As to the second count of grand
larceny and the two counts of burglary of an automobile, the jury found Ramsey guilty. The circuit
court sentenced Ramsey as a habitual offender to seven years for each count of burglary of an
automobile and ten years for one count of grand larceny, with all the sentences to run consecutively.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶8.
In Moore v. State, 914 So. 2d 185, 189 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (citations omitted), this
Court stated its standard of review regarding a Batson challenge as follows:
Our standard of review requires reversal only if the factual findings of the trial judge
are “clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” Any
determination made by a trial judge under Batson is accorded great deference
because it is “based, in a large part, on credibility.” In the Batson context, the term
“great deference” has been defined as meaning an insulation from appellate reversal
of any trial findings which are not clearly erroneous.
ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE
¶9.
Ramsey asserts only one issue on appeal, which we quote verbatim: “The trial court erred
when it found no prima facie case of discrimination by the prosecution when the State used three
of the four peremptory challenges it exercised against African American jurors.”
¶10.
Ramsey does not take issue with the final makeup of his jury, and there is nothing in the
3
record revealing what that final makeup of the jury was. Also, Ramsey’s appellate brief seems to
confuse how many peremptory challenges the State exercised and how many of those challenges
were exercised against African Americans. To be clear, the State exercised five of its six total
peremptory challenges. Going by the exchange that took place in response to Ramsey’s Batson
challenge, the State exercised three of its first four challenges to exclude African Americans. There
is nothing in the record indicating what the race was of the fifth potential juror excluded by the
State.
¶11.
To establish a prima facie claim of discrimination under Batson, a defendant must show the
following:
1.
That he is a member of a “cognizable racial group;”
2.
That the proponent has exercised peremptory challenges toward the elimination of
veniremen of his race; and
3.
That facts and circumstances raised an inference that the proponent used his
peremptory challenges for the purpose of striking minorities.
Puckett v. State, 788 So. 2d 752, 756 (¶10) (Miss. 2001) (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 97).
¶12.
The only evidence that Ramsey offered to support his allegations of discrimination was that
the State excluded three African American jurors. Ramsey offered no evidence of any facts or
circumstances from which the court could infer that the State was purposefully striking African
American venire members. Furthermore, there was no such evidence in the record of any facts or
circumstances that would support Ramsey’s allegations.
¶13.
In Ryals v. State, 794 So. 2d 161, 164 (¶10) (Miss. 2001), the supreme court explained the
rationale behind Batson as follows:
The Batson doctrine is not concerned with racial, gender, or ethnic balance on petit
juries, and it does not hold that a party is entitled to a jury composed of or including
members of [a] cognizable group. Rather, it is concerned exclusively with
discriminatory intent on the part of the lawyer against whose use of his peremptory
4
strikes the objection is interposed.
In Ryals, the supreme court found that the sole fact that the State exercised ten of its twelve
peremptory challenges to exclude female venire members was not, in itself, enough to raise an
inference of discriminatory intent. Id. at 166 (¶15). This Court recently reaffirmed this principle
when we stated, “The number of peremptory strikes which the State used against the minority
members, standing alone, is insufficient to establish an inference to a pattern of purposeful
discrimination.” Gilbert v. State, 934 So. 2d 330, 337 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Dennis
v. State, 555 So. 2d 679, 681 (Miss. 1989)).
¶14.
We find the analysis from Gilbert to be conclusive of the present issue because Ramsey
offered no evidence in support of his Batson challenge other than the fact that the State excluded
three African American venire members. Furthermore, the State did not exercise all of its
peremptory challenges. The State used one, possibly two, of its challenges to exclude a non-African
American venire member, and it also tendered at least one African American as a juror.
¶15.
Upon examining the evidence in light of the great deference that we afford a circuit court in
its ruling on a Batson challenge, we find no error with the court’s finding that Ramsey did not
establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Ramsey offered no evidence in support of his
challenge other than the fact that the State excluded three African Americans, and we find there was
no error in failing to require the State to present race-neutral reasons for exercising its peremptory
challenges. This issue is without merit.
¶16. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FORREST COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF COUNT II, AUTO BURGLARY, AND SENTENCE OF SEVEN YEARS
AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER; COUNT III, AUTO BURGLARY, AND SENTENCE OF
SEVEN YEARS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER; AND COUNT IV, GRAND LARCENY,
AND SENTENCE OF TEN YEARS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER, ALL IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH ALL
SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY AND TO BE SERVED WITHOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF PROBATION OR PAROLE, IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS
5
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO FORREST COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR.
6
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.