Keshia Gilmer v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-KA-02018-COA
KESHIA GILMER
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
12/02/2009
HON. MICHAEL M. TAYLOR
LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JUSTIN T. COOK
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JOHN R. HENRY
DEE BATES
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF ARSON AND
SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH
TWO YEARS SUSPENDED, ONE YEAR TO
SERVE, AND TWO YEARS OF
PROBATION
AFFIRMED – 03/01/2011
BEFORE LEE, P.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
This appeal is from Keshia Gilmer’s conviction in the Lincoln County Circuit Court
for arson and resulting sentence of three years in the custody of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections, with two years suspended, one year to serve, and two years of probation.
Feeling aggrieved, Gilmer appeals and asserts that there is insufficient evidence to support
her conviction and that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is against her conviction.
¶2.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
FACTS
¶3.
On June 10, 2008, Officer Fred Perkins of the Brookhaven Police Department
received a complaint regarding a burglary at Bruce Robinson’s home in Brookhaven,
Mississippi. Upon arriving at the home, Officer Perkins discovered a pile of items on fire
in the home’s front yard. Officer Perkins testified that he observed a shoe burning on the pile
and that various items of jewelry, including four rings and a necklace, were pulled from the
fire.
¶4.
At the time of the fire, Robinson was dating Luciana Thadison, who was living with
him at his home. Robinson had previously been involved with Gilmer. Robinson testified
that Gilmer called him on the day of the fire and told him that she was at his home and
wanted to leave some money there that she owed him. Robinson told Gilmer that she could
leave the money “on the step or in the mailbox.” According to Robinson, their conversation
ended at that point. Robinson testified that Gilmer called him again later the same day and
told him that she had “burned the b*tch[’s] sh*t” because “[i]t shouldn’t have been in
[Robinson’s home].” Robinson and Gilmer then agreed to meet at a nearby truck stop. They
were conversing at the truck stop when Thadison arrived, causing Gilmer to leave. Robinson
testified that Thadison followed Gilmer away from the truck stop. Robinson, however,
returned to his home, where he found Thadison’s jewelry burning in his yard.
¶5.
Thadison testified that she arrived at Robinson’s home on the day of the fire and saw
2
a four-door blue vehicle in the yard. Thadison watched a woman exit the house. When she
saw the woman, she called Robinson, who informed her that Gilmer drove a blue vehicle.
Thadison wrote down the tag number of the vehicle that she had seen. Shortly thereafter,
Thadison called Robinson again and Robinson told her that Gilmer was at a Shell station at
a truck stop. Thadison then drove to the truck stop. Upon arrival there, she saw both
Robinson and Gilmer, with Robinson leaning over in Gilmer’s car. Gilmer pulled off
immediately. Thadison then called Robinson, obtained Gilmer’s telephone number from him
and called her. Thadison pursued Gilmer “up the highway” and, during the pursuit, spoke
again by telephone with Robinson, who told her that he had arrived home and that Gilmer
had burned Thadison’s jewelry in his yard.
Thadison also testified that, during her
conversation with Gilmer, Gilmer confirmed that she had burned Thadison’s belongings.
¶6.
Thadison identified the jewelry recovered from the burn pile as hers. Thadison was
not sure of the exact value of the items, but she testified that one ring had been purchased for
$175. She explained that one outfit and a pair of shoes that were burned cost approximately
$60. Thadison stated that the necklace that was burned was made of 14-carat gold and that
the remaining three rings were made of either 10- or 14-carat gold.
¶7.
Gilmer was the sole defense witness. She testified that she was dating Robinson in
June 2008 and that she had never seen Thadison except at trial. She denied meeting
Robinson at a truck stop and also denied setting fire to Thadison’s possessions.
¶8.
Additional facts, if necessary, will be related during our analysis and discussion of the
issues.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
3
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence
¶9.
Gilmer alleges that there is insufficient evidence to sustain her conviction. The
Mississippi Supreme Court has a specific standard of review for complaints regarding the
sufficiency of the evidence:
[An appellate c]ourt should consider all the evidence in the case before [it], as
well as all inferences which reasonably might be drawn from the evidence, and
then view this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. In so
doing, if [the court] conclude[s] that reasonable and fair-minded jurors, in the
exercise of their impartial judgment, could reach different conclusions as to
each element of the criminal offense for which the defendant is on trial, [it is]
duty-bound to find that the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the
conviction and thus . . . must affirm on appeal.
Brown v. State, 39 So. 3d 890, 895 (¶20) (Miss. 2010) (citing Tate v. State, 20 So. 3d 623,
643 (¶53) (Miss. 2009).
¶10.
The basis of Gilmer’s argument is that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence
regarding the value of the items that were burned. According to section 97-17-7 of the
Mississippi Code Annotated (Rev. 2006), a person can only be found guilty of third-degree
arson if he burns property worth at least $25.
¶11.
There was no official appraisal of the property offered at trial. Regardless, Thadison
testified that one ring had been purchased for $175, that the burned clothing had cost
approximately $60, and that the remaining jewelry was made of 10- or 14-carat gold. Based
on Thadison’s testimony, there is ample evidence that the burned items were worth at least
$25.
¶12.
Gilmer argues that her case is analogous to the appellant’s in Williams v. State, 763
So. 2d 186 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). In Williams, this Court found that the State failed to prove
4
that John Williams received stolen property worth at least $250. Id. at 189 (¶10). We noted
that our supreme court “has held that when there is no proof as to the value of an item, and
value is an element of the crime, then the State has failed to carry its burden.” Id. at 188 (¶5)
(citing Henley v. State, 729 So. 2d 232, 238 (¶25) (Miss. 1998)). What distinguishes this
case from Williams or Henley is that there was sufficient evidence in this case to establish
that the burned items were worth at least $25. Although the exact value of the items was not
established, it was clear that at the time of the arson, they were worth substantially more than
$25.
¶13.
This contention of error is without merit.
2. Weight of the Evidence
¶14.
Gilmer contends that the weight of the evidence is against her conviction because
most of the evidence consisted of the testimonies of Thadison and Robinson, who Gilmer
alleges were involved in “a love triangle.”
¶15.
The jury heard all of the evidence regarding the parties’ romantic entanglements.
Having done so, the jury found Robinson and Thadison credible; as the ultimate fact-finder,
the jury was entitled to find Robinson and Thadison credible despite Robinson’s prior
relationship with Gilmer. See Lima v. State, 7 So. 3d 903, 910 (¶35) (Miss. 2009).
¶16.
There is no merit to this contention of error.
¶17. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF ARSON AND SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH
TWO YEARS SUSPENDED, ONE YEAR TO SERVE, AND TWO YEARS OF
PROBATION, IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO
LINCOLN COUNTY.
5
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, 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.
