Charles R. Nelson v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-KA-01614-COA
CHARLES R. NELSON
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:
APPELLEE
08/20/2008
HON. BETTY W. SANDERS
WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ERIN ELIZABETH PRIDGEN
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND
WILLIE DEWAYNE RICHARDSON
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF COUNT I, UTTERING A
FORGERY, AND SENTENCED TO TEN
YEARS WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED;
COUNT II, CONSPIRACY, AND
SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS WITH TWO
AND ONE-HALF YEARS SUSPENDED;
COUNT III, UTTERING A FORGERY, AND
SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS WITH FIVE
YEARS SUSPENDED; AND COUNT IV,
CONSPIRACY, AND SENTENCED TO FIVE
YEARS WITH TWO AND ONE-HALF
YEARS SUSPENDED; WITH THE
SENTENCE IN COUNT II TO RUN
CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN
COUNT I; WITH THE SENTENCE IN
COUNT III TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO
THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS I AND II;
AND WITH THE SENTENCE IN COUNT IV
TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE
SENTENCES IN COUNTS I, II, AND III,
ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, AND TO PAY
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $916
TO THOMPSON MANAGEMENT
SERVICES AND $700.50 TO COUNTY
HOUSING RHED GRANT
AFFIRMED - 09/15/2009
BEFORE LEE, P.J., GRIFFIS AND ROBERTS, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
On August 12, 2008, a jury in the Washington County Circuit Court found Charles
R. Nelson guilty of Count I, uttering a forgery; Count II, conspiracy; Count III, uttering a
forgery; and Count IV, conspiracy. Nelson was sentenced to ten years with five years
suspended on Count I, five years with two and one-half years suspended on Count II, ten
years with five years suspended on Count III, and five years with two and one-half years
suspended on Count IV. The sentence in Count II was ordered to run consecutively to Count
I; the sentence in Count III was ordered to run consecutively to Counts I and II; the sentence
in Count IV was ordered to run concurrently with the sentences imposed in Counts I, II, and
III. All sentences were ordered to be served in the custody of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections.
¶2.
Nelson filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative,
for a new trial. The trial court subsequently overruled Nelson’s post-trial motion. Nelson
now appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a JNOV as
2
the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions.
FACTS
¶3.
Christine and Derek Thompson, owners of Thompson Management Services, Inc.,
discovered that two unauthorized checks had been written on their business accounts. These
checks were kept locked in a desk drawer in their office. The Thompsons notified the
Greenville Police Department that unauthorized checks were drawn from these two accounts.
One check was made payable to Larry Turner in the amount of $916. The account holder
on this check was listed as Thompson Management Services. The second check was made
payable to Larry Turner in the amount of $700.50. The account holder on this check was
County Housing RHED, a nonprofit group of which Derek is on the board. The Thompsons
contracted with County Housing RHED to manage apartments for low income families in
Greenville, Mississippi. The Thompsons did not know Turner, nor did they recognize the
signature on the checks.
¶4.
Sometime after the two stolen checks had been cashed, Turner was arrested by the
police during an attempt to pass another forged check. Turner was found in the car with
Nelson; however, Nelson was not arrested for any wrongdoing at the time. Upon questioning
by the police about the two forged checks, Turner admitted to cashing the checks and said
he had received the checks from a man named “William.” According to Turner, William
approached Turner and sought his help in cashing checks. William told Turner that he
obtained the checks from the company he worked for and did not have identification to cash
the checks. William then drove Turner on two separate occasions to cash each check. Each
3
time Turner cashed the check, he gave the money to William and received $150 in cash for
his help. The police presented Turner with a photographic lineup, and Turner identified
Nelson as the man he knew as “William.” Turner also identified Nelson in court as the man
who gave him the checks to cash. Nelson is Christine’s cousin and worked for Thompson
Management Services as the head of property maintenance. Nelson was subsequently
arrested.
DISCUSSION
¶5.
In his only issue on appeal, Nelson argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant
his motion for a JNOV as the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of uttering
a forgery and conspiracy. A motion for a JNOV challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.
Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (¶16) (Miss. 2005). “[T]he critical inquiry is whether the
evidence shows ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] accused committed the act charged,
and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed.’” Id.
(citation omitted). If, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any
rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential elements of
the crime existed, this Court will affirm the denial of the motion for a JNOV. Id. If we find
that reasonable, fair-minded jurors could have concluded that the defendant was guilty of the
accused crime, the evidence will be deemed sufficient. Id. Furthermore, the jury is
responsible for weighing any conflicting evidence, “evaluating the credibility of witnesses,
and determining whose testimony should be believed.” Ford v. State, 737 So. 2d 424, 425
(¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
4
1.
¶6.
Uttering a Forgery
Nelson argues that the State failed to prove the elements of uttering a forgery.
According to Duhart v. State, 927 So. 2d 768, 775 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006):
It is clear from [Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-21-59 (Rev. 2006)]
that in order to sustain a conviction of uttering forgery, the State must have
proved beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that the defendant published or uttered
as true (2) a forged, altered or counterfeit instrument, (3) knowing the
instrument to be forged, altered or counterfeited, (4) with intent to defraud.
Nelson’s chief contention is that the State failed to provide evidence that Nelson presented
the forged checks as true documents. Nelson claims that only Turner presented the checks
to be cashed. Although Nelson did not physically cash the checks, he is guilty of uttering a
forgery as a principal because he acted in concert with Turner. Ross v. State, 914 So. 2d 814,
816 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). Turner, who was an admitted drug user, testified that
Nelson sought his help in cashing some checks. Turner stated that Nelson told him the
checks came from Nelson’s place of business, but Nelson did not have the proper
identification needed to cash the checks. Nelson took Turner to cash the two checks, both
of which were made payable to Turner. We find that there was sufficient evidence for the
jury to find that Nelson possessed the forged checks and attempted to pass these checks off
as true.
¶7.
In regard to the second element, Christine testified that she was certain the instrument
was forged. Christine stated that they print all their business checks using a computer
program, and the forged checks were filled out using a typewriter. Christine and Derek
testified that the signature on the checks was not theirs. The Thompsons further testified that
5
Nelson did not have permission to use the business checks. As to the third element, the jury
could reasonably infer that Nelson knew the checks were forged. In regard to the final
element, if Nelson made the utterance with knowledge of the forgery, the jury could
reasonably infer that he did so with the intent to defraud. See Duhart, 927 So. 2d at 775
(¶16). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that reasonable,
fair-minded jurors could have concluded that Nelson was guilty of uttering a forgery.
2.
¶8.
Conspiracy
Conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons who conspire to commit a crime.
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-1-1 (Rev. 2006). “Conspiracy agreements need not be formal or
express, but may be inferred from the circumstances, particularly by declarations, acts and
conduct of the alleged conspirators.” Echols v. State, 759 So. 2d 495, 499 (¶16) (Miss. Ct.
App. 2000). Furthermore, the offense can be complete without showing an overt act in
furtherance of the conspiracy. Davis v. State, 485 So. 2d 1055, 1058 (Miss. 1986).
¶9.
According to Turner’s testimony, Nelson approached him and offered him money to
cash checks from Nelson’s employer. Turner stated that he agreed to help Nelson because
he needed money for drugs. Nelson gave Turner $150 each time Turner cashed a check for
him. When Turner was arrested for attempting to pass another forged check, Nelson was
waiting in the car for Turner. The jury could reasonably conclude that Nelson and Turner
were involved in a common scheme to cash forged checks. Although Nelson exercised his
constitutional right to not testify on his behalf, the supreme court has held that the testimony
of a co-indictee or a co-conspirator, if not improbable, or self-contradictory, or “substantially
6
impeached,” is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Fairchild v. State, 459 So. 2d 793, 798
(Miss. 1984).
Turner was an admitted drug addict, but his testimony was not self-
contradictory or thoroughly impeached. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the State, we find that reasonable, fair-minded jurors could have concluded that Nelson
was guilty of conspiracy.
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONVICTION OF COUNT I, UTTERING A FORGERY, AND SENTENCE OF TEN
YEARS WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED; COUNT II, CONSPIRACY, AND
SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS WITH TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS SUSPENDED;
COUNT III, UTTERING A FORGERY, AND SENTENCE OF TEN YEARS WITH
FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED; AND COUNT IV, CONSPIRACY, AND SENTENCE OF
FIVE YEARS WITH TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS SUSPENDED; WITH THE
SENTENCE IN COUNT II TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN
COUNT I; WITH THE SENTENCE IN COUNT III TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO
THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS I AND II; AND WITH THE SENTENCE IN COUNT
IV TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS I, II, AND
III, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, AND TO PAY RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $916 TO
THOMPSON MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND $700.50 TO COUNTY HOUSING
RHED GRANT, IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED
TO WASHINGTON COUNTY.
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
