RayKeitgdrith Raylon Ricks v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-KA-01662-COA
RAYKEITGDRITH RAYLON RICKS A/K/A
RAY-RAY
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
8/10/2007
HON. MARCUS D. GORDON
NEWTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD
MARK SHELDON DUNCAN
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF COUNT I: SALE OF A
SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE
YEARS AND COUNT II: SALE OF A
SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
AND SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS,
WITH BOTH SENTENCES TO RUN
CONSECUTIVELY IN THE CUSTODY OF
THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, AND TO PAY A $3,000
FINE
AFFIRMED - 1/27/2009
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., BARNES AND ROBERTS, JJ.
BARNES, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
RayKeitgdrith Raylon Ricks appeals his convictions from the Circuit Court of Newton
County of Count I: sale of a Schedule II controlled substance, namely cocaine, with a
sentence of twenty-five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections,
and Count II: sale of a Schedule I controlled substance, namely marijuana, in an amount of
less than thirty grams, with a sentence of three years, to run consecutively with the sentence
in Count I, for a total of twenty-eight years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections. He was also ordered to pay a fine of $3,000.
FACTS
¶2.
On the evening of August 25, 2005, Grady Williams, a confidential informant, met
with Agents Shelly Boone and Richard Sistrunk of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics. At
the time, Williams had contraband charges pending against him. The purpose of the meeting
was for Williams to establish a controlled purchase from Ricks. Williams and his vehicle
were searched thoroughly, and he was equipped with video/audio surveillance equipment.
Williams was also given recorded funds. Williams then drove to Ricks’s house in Union,
Mississippi. Ricks came out to Williams’s car, and Williams expressed a desire to buy crack
cocaine. Ricks went inside the house and returned with the cocaine. Ricks testified,
however, that he did not have any cocaine in his possession and merely handed Williams a
small amount of marijuana at no charge. However, Williams and the agents testified that
Williams obtained .70 gram of cocaine base from Ricks, which was entered into evidence at
the trial.
¶3.
A second meeting between Williams and the agents occurred on October 3, 2005. As
before, Williams and his vehicle were searched, and he was given surveillance equipment.
Williams went to Ricks’s house again, and this time Ricks got in the vehicle with him. The
2
two men drove around town for a short time during which Ricks handed Williams a bag of
marijuana, and Williams gave Ricks cash for the purchase. Williams dropped Ricks off at
his house and turned the marijuana over to the agents.
¶4.
Both parties stipulated at trial that Ricks sold Williams 17.6 grams of marijuana.
Ricks also admitted at trial that he sold drugs and that he sold the marijuana to Williams. As
previously stated, Ricks denied selling cocaine to Williams on August 25, 2005. Ricks was
convicted on two counts: the sale of a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine, and the sale
of a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana, in an amount of less than thirty grams. He
was sentenced to twenty-five years and three years, respectively, with the sentences to run
consecutively. A motion for a new trial was filed on August 20, 2007. The motion was
denied by the trial judge. Ricks now appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial,
claiming that the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in its denial of the motion for a new trial.
¶5.
“In making the determination of whether a verdict is against the overwhelming weight
of the evidence, this Court must view all evidence in the light most consistent with the jury
verdict, and we should not overturn the verdict unless we find that the lower court abused its
discretion when it denied the motion.” Woodard v. State, 765 So. 2d 573, 576 (¶16) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2000) (citing Veal v. State, 585 So. 2d 693, 695 (Miss. 1991)). “[W]e 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 v. State, 895 So. 2d 836,
844 (¶18) (Miss. 2005) (citing Herring v. State, 691 So. 2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997)).
Therefore, in order for this Court to reverse on the grounds that the verdict was against the
3
overwhelming weight of the evidence, we would have to “disagree[] with the jury’s
resolution of the conflicting testimony.” Id.
¶6.
Ricks argues that Williams, a confidential informant with a police record, obtained
the cocaine elsewhere, and Williams was attempting to frame him in order to help Williams
escape prosecution for charges that he had pending. Ricks also points to the fact that the
video did not show money exchanging hands. The jury has the responsibility to weigh and
consider the credibility of witnesses and any conflicting evidence. Neal v. State, 451 So. 2d
743, 758 (Miss. 1984). “When an informant testifies in open court and his background is
thoroughly explored, it is up to the jury to assess his credibility.” Mallard v. State, 798 So.
2d 539, 543 (¶12) (Miss. 2001) (citing Clayton v. State, 582 So. 2d 1019, 1021 (Miss. 1991)).
The testimony by the two agents from the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics corroborated
Williams’s testimony regarding the purchase of cocaine on August 25, 2005. In addition, the
jury was also able to view the video evidence of the transaction.
¶7.
Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find no
abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial as the evidence
supported the verdict. Accordingly, we affirm.
¶8.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEWTON COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF COUNT I: SALE OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AND COUNT II: SALE
OF A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCE OF THREE
YEARS, WITH BOTH SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND TO
PAY A $3,000 FINE IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO NEWTON COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS
AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR.
4
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.
