Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 107 Filed: 02/04/2020 Page 1 of 1

Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 103 Filed: 11/19/2019 Page 1 of 9

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI PLAINTIFF

v. Criminal Case No. 14-29

DEANGELO MORMENT DEFENDANT

PETITION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL AND

INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM

Defendant DeAngelo Morment, by and through counsel, moves this Court pursuant to the

provisions of M.C.A. § 99-35-115 and M.R.C.P. 8.3 to grant him bail pending his appeal to the

Mississippi Supreme Court from his conviction for aggravated assault.

1. Morment was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault. He appealed to the

Mississippi Supreme Court which assigned his case to the Court of Appeals. All of the briefs

have been filed in the appeal.

2. Mr. Morment was released on bail pending trial and previously appeared in

the Circuit Court as directed.

3. He has no prior history of criminal activity and therte is no reason to believe that he

would commit another crime or constitute a flight risk.

4. Mr. Morment has substantial ties to the area. He has lived in Hinds County since he

was sixteen (he is 27 now). His mother, father, brothers and sisters and aunt all live in Jackson.

Both his relatives and friends would testify to his good character and mental fitness at a hearing

on his request for bail.

5. Mr. Morment believes that he has a substantial chance for prevailing on

appeal inasmuch as there was no reliable evidence tying him to the crime.

1
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 103 Filed: 11/19/2019 Page 2 of 9

SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM

Mr. Morment is not a flight risk or a danger to others if released on appeal. Indeed, he

was released pending trial and there is no suggestion that he tried to harm anyone.

He has argued on appeal that the only evidence against him was the opinion of an

investigator that a videotape of the shooting showed that Morment was involved. However the

videotape is so unclear that no one can be identified via their facial features. The investigator

opined that Morment was one of the shooters because one of the shooters on the video had a

bandage on his left arm and that Morment had been previously injured and should have been

wearing a bandage on his left arm. The identification was not sufficiently reliable to be

admissible and as it was the only evidence of Morment’s involvement, his convictions must be

vacated and rendered or, at the very least, reversed and remanded for a new trial.

The factors looked at by courts in granting bail pending appeal support Morment’s bail

application:

1) the age, background and family ties, relationships and circumstances of the defendant;

Mr. Morment is 27 years old and has lived in Jackson for the past eleven years. Mr.

Morment’s entire immediate family lives in Jackson including his mother, father, and several

siblings.

2) the defendant’s reputation, character, and health;

The Defendant is in good health. There are many people who can vouch for his good

reputation and character including Adrian Walker, a manager at Zaxby’s; Tonya Trotter, a

supervisor at Levi Strauss; Wendy Young, a coordinator at Levi Strauss; Yoshowanda Trotter,

school teacher; Fredrica Meeks, a manager at Kolb’s Cleaners; Sabrina Williams, teacher; etc.

2
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 103 Filed: 11/19/2019 Page 3 of 9

3) the defendant’s prior criminal record, including prior releases on recognizance or on

unsecured or secured appearance bonds, and other pending cases;
Mr. Morment has never been arrested or convicted of a felony before. He was released

on bail pending trial and he was able to abide by all of the conditions of his bail.

4) the identity of responsible members of the community who will vouch for the
defendant’s reliability;
Adrian Walker, a manager at Zaxby’s; Tonya Trotter, a supervisor at Levi Strauss;

Wendy Young, a coordinator at Levi Strauss; Yoshowanda Trotter, school teacher; Fredrica

Meeks, a manager at Kolb’s Cleaners; Sabrina Williams, teacher; etc.

5) violence or lack of violence in the alleged commission of the offense;

Both victims were shot; however, there is a lack of evidence that Mr. Morment was one

of the shooters.

6) the nature of the offense charged, the apparent probability of conviction, and the likely
sentence, insofar as these factors are relevant to the risk of nonappearance;
He was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault. Nonetheless, the evidence at trial

was insufficient to convict him. He is confident that his case will be reversed and if there is a

second trial, he will be acquitted. There is no reason for him to flee.

7) the type of weapon used (e.g., knife, pistol, shotgun, sawed-off shotgun, assault or
automatic weapon, explosive device, etc.);
Pistol.

8) threats made against victims or witnesses;

There were no threats.

9) the value of property taken during the alleged commission of the offense;

No property was taken.

3
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 103 Filed: 11/19/2019 Page 4 of 9

10) whether the property allegedly taken was recovered or not, and damage or lack of damage to
the property allegedly taken;

Not applicable.

11) residence of the defendant, including consideration of real property ownership, and length of
residence in the defendant’s domicile;
Mr. Morment has resided in Hinds County for the last eleven years. He does not own any

real property.

12) in cases where the defendant is charged with a drug offense, evidence of selling or
distribution activity that should indicate a substantial increase in the amount of bond;

Not applicable.

13) consideration of the defendant’s employment status and history, the location of defendant’s
employment (e.g., whether employed in the county where the alleged offense occurred), and the
defendant’s financial condition;
As a teenager, Mr. Morment worked at Wendy’s and Levi’s. Later he did construction

work. He was doing construction work when he was arrested.

14) sentence enhancements, if any, included in the charging document; and

His sentence was not enhanced.

15) any other fact or circumstance bearing on the risk of nonappearance or on the danger to
others or to the public.
Mr. Morment was charged with and convicted on two counts of aggravated assault. One

of the victims testified at his trial but could not identify him. The only identification was made

by a law enforcement officer who stated that Morment had had a bandage on his left arm some

three weeks prior to the shooting and that one of the shooters on a videotape of the shooting also

had a bandage on the left arm although it was smaller than the one he had seen on Mr. Morment.

4
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 103 Filed: 11/19/2019 Page 5 of 9

This was the only evidence against Mr. Morment.

Evidence is insufficient where the evidence “viewed in the light most favorable to the

prosecution gives equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of

innocence of the crime charged, then a reasonable jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable

doubt.” Clark v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 394, 396 (5th Cir. 1985); United States v. Sacerio, 952

F.2d 860, 865-66 (5th Cir. 1992) (a “plausible, rational, innocent explanation for almost every

action, thus [lends] reasonable doubt to an inference of guilt”). If a reasonable jury would doubt

whether the evidence proves an essential count, reversal is required. Jackson v. Virginia, 443

U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); United States v. Onick, 889 F.2d 1425 (5th Cir.

1989).

In Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886 (Miss.1968), the Mississippi Supreme Court stated that

in considering whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the face of a motion

for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the critical inquiry is whether

the evidence shows “beyond a reasonable doubt that accused committed the act charged, and that

he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the

evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction.” Carr, 208 So.2d at 889.

See also Gray v. State, 926 So.2d 961, 968 (Miss.App. 2006) (When reviewing the sufficiency

of evidence in a case, the Court must determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated on numerous occasions that when determining

whether a verdict should be overturned that the “Court must accept as true the evidence which

supports the verdict and will reverse only when convinced that the circuit court has abused it

5
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 103 Filed: 11/19/2019 Page 6 of 9

discretion in failing to grant a new trial.” Dudley v. State, 719 So.2d 180, 182 (Miss. 1998).

Under this standard, the prosecution is given “the benefit of all favorable inferences that may

reasonably be drawn from the evidence.” Griffin v. State, 607 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Miss. 1992).

When making this review, the Court will reverse only if the jury’s verdict is “so contrary to the

overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable

injustice.” Dilworth v. State, 909 So.2d 731, 737 (Miss. 2005). The evidence is weighed “in the

light most favorable to the verdict.” Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 844 (Miss. 2005).

In this case, the only evidence that DeAngelo Morment was involved was his

identification from a videotape that wasn’t clear enough to show facial features. A law

enforcement officer who had come in contact with DeAngelo several weeks beforehand testified

that the videotape appeared to show bandages on the assailant’s left arm and that DeAngelo

would have had bandaging on his left arm. This was woefully inadequate to convict DeAngelo

Morment of two counts of aggravated assault.

A challenge to the weight of the evidence requires the State to have a greater quantum of

evidence than does a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Pharr v. State, 465 So.2d

294, 302 (Miss.1984). The jury’s verdict should be overturned when “from the whole

circumstances, the testimony is contradictory and unreasonable, and so highly improbable that

the truth of it becomes so extremely doubtful that it is repulsive to the reasoning of the ordinary

mind.” Thomas v. State, 129 Miss. 332, 92 So. 225, 226 (1922). For the same reasons the

evidence in this case was insufficient to support the convictions, the jury’s finding of guilty of

two counts of aggravated assault was against the weight of the evidence.

It is clear in this case that the State did not have sufficient evidence to convict Mr.

Morment and it is very likely his conviction will be vacated on appeal.

6
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 103 Filed: 11/19/2019 Page 7 of 9

Mr. Morment also has other issues in his appeal which would necessitate reversal. The

state used hearsay crimestoppers evidence as substantive evidence of Morment’s guilt. During

closing, the prosecution argued that “You had Crime-Stopper tips that came in that said, hey,

Deangelo Morment shot -- they did it. Not just one tip, he said multiple tips. Does it matter who

called in to give a tip? That's why they got a tip line, that's why it's anonymous; because people

are afraid to come forward.” T. 332.

The state also used inadmissible hearsay evidence to establish that Morment had a motive

to shoot the two victims. The state’s motive for the shooting was that it was in retaliation for the

kidnapping and assault of DeAngelo and the murder of his cousin Orlando Morment. Its only

evidence of that motive was hearsay evidence adduced through Investigator Rozerrio Camel and

his evidence was all hearsay. Furthermore, Camel admitted that none of the hearsay motive

evidence was attributed to DeAngelo Morment himself, only to unnamed family members. T.

242. To top it off, Camel was allowed to testify that after DeAngelo was shot and his cousin

killed, Camel warned DeAngelo not to retaliate. All in all, it is expected that Mr. Morment’s

conviction will be reversed.

Conclusion:

Wherefore, DeAngelo Morment respectfully requests that the Court grant bail

either on the existing record or after a hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

DANGELO MORMENT

7
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 103 Filed: 11/19/2019 Page 8 of 9

By: /s/ Jane E. Tucker___________________

Jane E. Tucker

Jane E. Tucker (MS Bar No. 1786)

235 Melbourne Road Jackson, MS 39206
(601) 291-2047
Janetucker39@gmail.com

8
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 103 Filed: 11/19/2019 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jane E. Tucker, do hereby certify that I have this day filed the foregoing via the

Court’s ECF system which automatically sent notice to the following:

Robert Smith
Hinds County District Attorney

This, the 18th day of November, 2019.

__/s/ Jane E. Tucker_________

Jane E. Tucker

9
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 79 Filed: 08/02/2018 Page 1 of 8
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 79 Filed: 08/02/2018 Page 2 of 8
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 79 Filed: 08/02/2018 Page 3 of 8
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 79 Filed: 08/02/2018 Page 4 of 8
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 79 Filed: 08/02/2018 Page 5 of 8
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 79 Filed: 08/02/2018 Page 6 of 8
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 79 Filed: 08/02/2018 Page 7 of 8
Case: 25CI1:14-cr-00029-AHW Document #: 79 Filed: 08/02/2018 Page 8 of 8