Roderick Rashael Lewis v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2006-KA-01788-COA
RODERICK RASHAEL LEWIS
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
09/18/2006
HON. FRANK G. VOLLOR
WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
GEORGE T. HOLMES
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: CHARLES W. MARIS
RICHARD EARL SMITH, JR.
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF COUNT I, MURDER, AND
COUNT II, ARMED ROBBERY, AND
SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY
OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS FOR EACH COUNT, WITH
THE SENTENCE FOR COUNT I TO RUN
CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE
FOR COUNT II
AFFIRMED: 01/06/2009
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Roderick Rashael Lewis was convicted of murder and armed robbery following a jury
trial in the Circuit Court of Warren County. He was sentenced to serve two consecutive life
sentences in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Lewis now appeals
his convictions and sentences claiming that: (1) the circuit court erroneously denied Lewis's
motions for a directed verdict and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict; (2) the circuit
court improperly sentenced Lewis to consecutive life sentences without affording him a
sentencing hearing; (3) the jury's verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the
evidence; and (4) Lewis was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
Lewis was an employee of the victim, Kenneth Williamson, who owned a roofing
business in Vicksburg. Williamson caught Lewis sleeping on the job and docked Lewis's
pay. On July 27, 2005, Lewis and three other individuals – Dereck Hall, Joshua Warren, and
Joshua Bee – drove from Rolling Fork down to Vicksburg. Hall, Warren, and Bee each
testified that Lewis was taking them to meet Williamson in hopes that he would offer them
a job with his roofing business.
¶3.
Williamson invited the group into his home and, after a brief conversation, offered
them all employment. Lewis then asked Williamson for some money, but Williamson
replied that he did not have any cash. Instead, Williamson and Hall drove to a nearby gas
station, and Williamson bought gas and cigarettes for the group's return to Rolling Fork.
They then returned to Williamson's home.
¶4.
Williamson decided that he was going to bed, and he told the group that they were
welcome to spend the night so they would not have to drive all the way back to Rolling Fork.
He then retired to his bedroom, while the others remained in the living room.
¶5.
According to Warren's testimony at trial, Lewis then told Warren that he was going
2
to rob Williamson. Warren tried to dissuade Lewis, telling him that Williamson had no cash
and that they needed him for their employment. Hall, Warren, and Bee began to exit the
trailer when they saw Lewis head toward Williamson's bedroom. They heard gunshots on
their way out, and Bee glanced back and saw Lewis taking Williamson's wallet out of his
pocket. They headed for the truck, and as they were trying to back out, Lewis jumped in the
front passenger seat.
¶6.
There was testimony that Lewis was acting “hyped up,” and some witnesses saw
blood on Lewis and a gun in his hand. They went back to Rolling Fork and returned the
truck that they had borrowed to drive to Vicksburg. Williamson did not show up for work
the next morning, so his crew became worried. Lewis was among the crew that had shown
up for work that morning. Lewis, Steven Lewis (Roderick Lewis's brother), Harvey Lee
Davis, and Nick Blackmore drove from the work site to Williamson's home to check on him.
They found Williamson dead in his bedroom and called law enforcement to the scene.
¶7.
The autopsy revealed that Williamson was shot eight times – six shots to the back of
the head, one shot to the neck, and one shot through his left arm. Gunshot residue was found
on the back of Lewis's right hand, and Lewis's blood was found inside the truck. Lewis
testified that he was with his girlfriend, Lashunda Lindsey, at the time of the murder.
However, Lindsey did not fully corroborate Lewis's story.
¶8.
There was testimony by various witnesses in Rolling Fork that Lewis had threatened
to rob Williamson earlier during the day of the murder. Lewis testified that he only
threatened to “beat [Williamson’s] ass” in a joking manner. Lewis said that his blood was
found in the truck because he went with the others to buy marijuana that night and an old
3
wound began to bleed while he was in the truck. He denied ever going to Vicksburg,
testified that Williamson was a father figure to him, and denied murdering Williamson.
¶9.
The jury found Lewis guilty of murder and armed robbery. The jury’s verdict
unanimously imposed a life sentence for the crime of armed robbery. Thereafter, the circuit
court sentenced Lewis to life imprisonment for Count I, murder, and life imprisonment for
Count II, armed robbery, to be served consecutively. Lewis filed a motion for a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which was denied.
¶10.
The Office of Indigent Appeals, representing Lewis on appeal, filed a brief pursuant
to Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743, 748 (¶18) (Miss. 2005) indicating that there were no
arguable issues to raise on appeal. In accordance with Lindsey, Lewis filed a supplemental
pro se brief setting forth the issues we discuss below.
ANALYSIS
1.
¶11.
Whether the circuit court erred in denying Lewis's motions for a
directed verdict and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Lewis first argues that his motion for a directed verdict should have been granted
because the State failed to prove Lewis's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When reviewing
a motion for a directed verdict, the Court looks to the sufficiency of the evidence. Bush v.
State, 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (¶16) (Miss. 2005). All of the evidence must be construed in the
light most favorable to the prosecution. Id. “We are authorized to reverse only where, with
respect to one or more of the elements of the offense charged, the evidence so considered is
such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty.”
McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993) (citations omitted).
4
¶12.
Lewis argues that the State failed to link him to the crime via DNA samples,
fingerprints, or gunshot residue. However, there was ample eyewitness testimony and
circumstantial evidence for the jury to consider. There was testimony that Lewis was angry
at Williamson for docking his pay. Some witnesses heard Lewis state his intention to rob
Williamson shortly before the murder occurred. There was testimony by witnesses who saw
Lewis, along with Hall, Warren, and Bee, in the borrowed truck headed to Vicksburg on the
night of the murder.
Hall, Warren, and Bee all testified that Lewis went back to
Williamson's bedroom alone, and shots were fired. Warren testified that Lewis stated he was
going to rob Williamson just before Lewis went back to Williamson's bedroom. Further,
Bee stated that he glanced back on his way out and saw Lewis remove Williamson's wallet
from his pocket.
¶13.
Lewis's brother, Steven, testified that Lewis admitted shooting Williamson. Further,
there was a slight amount of gunshot residue found on Lewis's hand. Despite Lewis's
argument that he was not connected to the crime through blood or DNA samples, a review
of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution shows that there was sufficient
evidence for a reasonable juror to find Lewis guilty of the murder and armed robbery of
Williamson.
¶14.
Secondly, Lewis contends that his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict
was improperly denied because the State failed to prove every essential element of armed
robbery because there was no cash found in Williamson's wallet. We review a motion for
a JNOV under the same standard as a directed verdict. Bush, 895 So. 2d at 843 (¶16).
¶15.
Armed robbery is defined by Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-79 (Rev.
5
2006), which provides:
Every person who shall feloniously take or attempt to take from the person or
from the presence the personal property of another and against his will by
violence to his person or by putting such person in fear of immediate injury
to his person by the exhibition of a deadly weapon shall be guilty of robbery
and, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned for life in the state penitentiary if
the penalty is so fixed by the jury . . . .
¶16.
Lewis claims that the State did not prove that he took cash money or other personal
property from Williamson. However, his claim is contrary to the evidence presented to the
jury. Bee testified that he saw Lewis remove Williamson's wallet from Williamson’s pocket
while Williamson was lying on the bed. Further, the State introduced photographs into
evidence which showed the wallet lying out on the bed just behind Williamson's back. This
evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is sufficient to allow
a reasonable juror to conclude that Lewis was guilty of armed robbery. Accordingly, this
issue has no merit.
2.
¶17.
Whether the circuit court erred by sentencing Lewis to consecutive life
sentences without affording him a sentencing hearing.
Lewis contends that the circuit court erred in allowing his two life sentences to run
consecutively without affording him a sentencing hearing. There was no objection made at
trial, and this issue was not raised in his motion for a new trial, but Lewis argues that the
plain-error rule should be invoked.
¶18.
Rule 10.04(B) of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court addresses
sentencing hearings: “If the defendant is found guilty of an offense for which life
imprisonment may be imposed, a sentencing trial shall be held before the same jury, if
possible, or before the court if jury waiver is allowed by the court.” However, in this case,
6
there was no sentencing discretion on the part of the circuit court. The pertinent statute on
armed robbery provides that every person found guilty of armed robbery as defined by the
statute “shall be imprisoned for life in the state penitentiary if the penalty is so fixed by the
jury.” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-79. The jury returned its verdict and imposed a life sentence
for the crime of armed robbery. The circuit court had no reason for a sentencing hearing as
there was no discretion to modify the jury's sentence. See Lewis v. State, 765 So. 2d 493,
505 (¶48) (Miss. 2000) (holding that URCCC 10.04(B) “requires a sentencing hearing only
where a life imprisonment sentence is optional”).
¶19.
Further, by statute, the circuit court had the discretion to determine whether Lewis's
sentences would run consecutively or concurrently. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-21 (Rev.
2007). We find that the circuit court did not abuse his discretion in sentencing Lewis to
consecutive life sentences. Accordingly, this issue has no merit.
3.
¶20.
Whether the jury's verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of
the evidence.
Lewis further argues that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the
evidence. Specifically, he claims there was no evidence directly linking him to the crime.
Again, he cites the lack of DNA, fingerprints, and gunshot residue.
¶21.
“When reviewing a denial of a motion for a new trial based on an objection to the
weight of the evidence, [the appellate court] will only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary
to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an
unconscionable injustice.” Bush, 895 So. 2d at 844 (¶18). The evidence is “weighed in the
light most favorable to the verdict.” Id. “[T]he power to grant a new trial should be invoked
7
only in exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.”
Id. (citations omitted). If the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the
proper remedy is to grant a new trial. Id.
¶22.
Again, Lewis's claim fails because he disregards much of the evidence against him.
Based on the numerous eyewitnesses and their testimonies regarding the threats Lewis made
against Williamson, the gunshots, and Bee’s testimony that Lewis took Williamson’s wallet,
the verdict is in no way contrary to the weight of the evidence. Thus, this issue has no merit.
4.
¶23.
Whether Lewis was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and
on appeal.
Finally, Lewis claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by both his
trial and appellate attorneys. We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under
the Strickland standard that requires a defendant to show that: (1) his counsel's performance
was deficient, and (2) this deficiency prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The burden of proof rests with the defendant to show both prongs.
McQuarter v. State, 574 So. 2d 685, 687 (Miss. 1990). Under Strickland, there is a strong
presumption that counsel's performance falls within the range of reasonable professional
assistance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. To overcome this presumption, "[t]he defendant
must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel's unprofessional
errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694.
¶24.
Lewis's only argument regarding his trial counsel is that he was abandoned by counsel
following the trial. In actuality, his trial counsel withdrew so that the Office of Indigent
Appeals could be substituted as his counsel on appeal. Lewis has shown no deficiency on
8
the part of his trial counsel.
¶25.
He further argues that he was abandoned by his counsel on appeal because his
appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Lindsey, stating that there were no arguable issues
to present to this Court. Specifically, he claims that if his trial counsel could find seven
issues to raise in the motion for a new trial, then his appellate counsel should have at least
been able to raise those same issues on appeal.
¶26.
However, Lindsey specifically sets forth the procedure to be followed when counsel
for an indigent criminal defendant does not believe the case presents any arguable issues on
appeal. Here, Lewis's appellate counsel precisely followed this procedure. Thus, Lewis fails
to present a deficiency on the part of his counsel on appeal. Accordingly, this issue has no
merit.
¶27. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WARREN COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF COUNT I, MURDER, AND COUNT II, ARMED ROBBERY,
AND SENTENCE OF LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FOR EACH COUNT, WITH THE SENTENCE
FOR COUNT I TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE FOR COUNT II,
IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO WARREN
COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS
AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR.
9
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.
