Charlie Singleton, Jr v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-KA-00508-COA
CHARLIE SINGLETON
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
02/28/2008
HON. LEE J. HOWARD
LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
BRENDA JACKSON PATTERSON
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BILLY L. GORE
FORREST ALLGOOD
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND
SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH
FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE
SUPERVISION
AFFIRMED: 03/31/2009
BEFORE LEE, P.J., GRIFFIS AND BARNES, JJ.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Charlie Singleton was convicted of sexual battery in violation of Mississippi Code
Annotated section 97-3-95(2) (Rev. 2006). He was sentenced to serve fifteen years in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. In addition, Singleton was placed on
five years of post-release supervision following his term of confinement. On appeal,
Singleton claims that: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for sexual
battery, and (2) the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. We find no
error and affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
Singleton is the biological father of Kelly.1 Singleton and Kelly’s mother, Bonnie,
separated when Kelly was a small child. In July 2002, when Kelly was a teenager, she
attended a family reunion in Chicago. At that time, Singleton was living in Chicago, and
Bonnie and Kelly lived in Mississippi. While in Chicago, Bonnie, Kelly, and Kelly’s
younger half-sister, Lauren,2 went to Singleton’s home. Until this meeting of Kelly and
Singleton, it had been fifteen years since Kelly had seen her father.
¶3.
Shortly after Bonnie, Kelly, and Lauren returned to Mississippi, Singleton called
Bonnie and asked if he could leave Chicago and move in with them. Singleton said that he
wanted to move to Mississippi and become a father to his daughter. Bonnie agreed, and
Singleton moved in with Bonnie and her two daughters.
¶4.
On September 27, 2003, Lauren woke up and looked for Kelly. Kelly was not in her
room, so Lauren went to her mother’s bedroom. Through the door to her mother’s bedroom,
she saw Kelly lying on the couch wearing no clothes from the waist down. Singleton was
holding Kelly’s arms above her head with one hand and one of Kelly’s legs with the other
hand. Lauren testified that Singleton had his face in between Kelly’s legs and “had his
1
The name of the minor child has been changed to “Kelly” to protect her identity.
2
The name of the minor sibling has been changed to “Lauren” to protect the identity
of the victim.
2
tongue in between her vagina.”
¶5.
Lauren then ran to call her mother who, in turn, called the police. Kelly was taken
to the hospital and a rape kit was administered. Dried secretion swabs taken from Kelly’s
body tested positive for Singleton’s seminal fluid.
¶6.
After Lauren called her mother, Singleton left the house and went to the police
station. Eli Perrigin, a detective with the Columbus Police Department, testified that
Singleton approached him in the parking lot of the police station. Singleton said that he
wanted to press charges against his wife because his thirteen- or fourteen-year-old daughter
tried to pull his penis out of his pants. She began to bite on his penis, and before he knew
it, he let her do what she wanted to do because “he had to get off.” Singleton also told
Detective Perrigin that his daughter did this to everyone else on 7th Avenue, so he might as
well let her do it to him.
¶7.
Detective Perrigin told Singleton to speak with his supervisor, Casey Freeman.
Freeman testified that Singleton said that his daughter, Kelly, came to his bedroom while he
was asleep and began to perform oral sex on him. He told her to stop, and she told him to
give her five dollars because that is how she got money from other people on their block.
Singleton told Freeman that there was not much a man could do when a woman did that to
him, so he “finished and that it felt good.” While at the police station, Singleton signed a
consent form and a mouth swab was taken that was used to match Singleton’s DNA with the
seminal fluid found on Kelly’s body.
¶8.
Singleton chose to testify on his behalf at trial. He said that Kelly and Lauren did not
want him to live with them because he brought discipline into the house, and he was
3
cramping their style. While he was asleep, Kelly came into his room, and he woke up with
her naked body coming down onto his face. Lauren was in the doorway saying that she was
going to tell her mother so she would leave Singleton for good. Singleton pushed Kelly
away and got up to go to the police station. He denied talking to Detective Perrigin and
Freeman, and he denied that his mouth was ever swabbed for DNA.
¶9.
Kelly did not testify at trial. Her mother, Bonnie, testified that Kelly had disappeared
a few days before the trial started. Bonnie also stated that Kelly suffers from mental
disabilities including attention deficit disorder and schizophrenia. Kelly was seventeen years
old on the date of the alleged sexual battery.
ANALYSIS
1.
¶10.
Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Singleton’s conviction
for sexual battery.
Singleton argues that his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict should
have been granted by the circuit court. Specifically, he claims that there is no reliable
evidence in the record to prove the element of penetration. The State responds that Lauren’s
eyewitness testimony and Singleton’s statements to the police constitute sufficient evidence
to convince a reasonable juror that Singleton was guilty of sexual battery.
¶11.
When reviewing the denial of motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on
an objection to the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence in a light most
favorable to the State to determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836,
843 (¶16) (Miss. 2005) (citation omitted).
4
¶12.
Singleton was charged with sexual battery pursuant to section 97-3-95(2), which
states:
A person is guilty of sexual battery if he or she engages in sexual penetration
with a child under the age of eighteen (18) years if the person is in a position
of trust or authority over the child including without limitation the child's
teacher, counselor, physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, minister, priest,
physical therapist, chiropractor, legal guardian, parent, stepparent, aunt, uncle,
scout leader or coach.
It is undisputed that Kelly was seventeen years old and that Singleton is Kelly’s father.
Thus, the element at issue here is penetration.
¶13.
For the purposes of section 97-3-95(2), “‘[s]exual penetration’ includes cunnilingus,
fellatio, buggery or pederasty, any penetration of the genital or anal openings of another
person's body by any part of a person's body, and insertion of any object into the genital or
anal openings of another person's body.” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-97(a) (Rev. 2006).
Singleton argues that the only evidence of penetration is Lauren’s statement that Singleton
“had his tongue in between her vagina.” Further, he claims that her testimony is unreliable
because her statement to the police merely stated that Singleton’s head was between Kelly’s
legs.
¶14.
However, the reliability of Lauren’s testimony is not an issue for this Court to decide.
It is the jury’s responsibility to evaluate the credibility of a witness. Smith v. State, 821 So.
2d 908, 910 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (citation omitted). “The jury has the duty to
determine the impeachment value of inconsistencies or contradictions as well as testimonial
defects of perception, memory, and sincerity.” Id. (quoting Ford v. State, 737 So. 2d 424,
425 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999)). Lauren’s testimony clearly proved penetration; it was the
5
jury’s decision to take this testimony as truth.
¶15.
In addition, there is the testimony of Detective Perrigin and Freeman. Singleton told
both police officers about instances where Kelly performed oral sex on him. Those instances
alone would constitute sexual battery. Viewing all of the evidence in a light most favorable
to the State’s case, we find that a rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
penetration occurred. Accordingly, this issue has no merit.
2.
¶16.
Whether the jury’s verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the
evidence.
Singleton claims that the jury’s guilty verdict is against the overwhelming weight of
the evidence. Again, he argues that “[n]one of the evidence shows penetration which is a
required element of sexual battery.”
¶17.
“When reviewing a denial of a motion for a new trial based on an objection to the
weight of the evidence, we 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. The power to grant a new trial should be invoked
only in exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.
Id. If the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the proper remedy is
to grant a new trial. Id.
¶18.
Singleton argues, just as he does in issue one, that Lauren’s testimony is unreliable
because her statement given to the police did not contain her statement at trial that Singleton
had his tongue in between Kelly’s vagina. Again, this issue of reliability was one for the
6
jury.
¶19.
He further claims that the DNA evidence did not prove penetration and was confusing
to the jury. This statement is completely correct – the DNA evidence only proved that
Singleton’s seminal fluid was found on Kelly’s body. That does not constitute penetration
under section 97-3-97. However, the jury was presented other evidence of penetration
through Lauren’s eyewitness testimony and the testimony of the Columbus police officers.
¶20.
We find that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and
allowing the verdict to stand will in no way result in an unconscionable injustice. Thus, this
issue has no merit.
¶21. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONVICTION OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCE OF FIFTEEN YEARS IN
THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH
FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS
OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LOWNDES COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS
AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR. MAXWELL, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
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.
