IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2025-KA-00242-COA
BRANDON KERAYLE BRINKLEY A/K/A APPELLANT BRANDON BRINKLEY A/K/A BRANDON K.
BRINKLEY
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/31/2024
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CELESTE EMBREY WILSON
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
BY: STACY L. FERRARO
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BARBARA WAKELAND BYRD
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: MATTHEW LOUIS BARTON
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/01/2026
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
BEFORE BARNES, C.J., McDONALD AND WEDDLE, JJ.
WEDDLE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. During a drug transaction, Brandon Brinkley grabbed the victim’s backpack and
exited the vehicle with it. He then displayed a firearm, exchanged gunfire with the victim,
shot the victim multiple times, and fled with the backpack. A jury found Brinkley guilty of
conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, and attempted first-degree murder. On
appeal, Brinkley argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for armed
robbery because he had already taken possession of the backpack before he exhibited a
firearm. He also contends that his conviction of attempted first-degree murder was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Based on the facts of this case, sufficient evidence
supported the jury’s finding that Brinkley’s exhibition of a firearm to intimidate the victim
while retaining possession of and escaping with the backpack constituted part of the taking
for purposes of the armed robbery statute.1 Further, the jury’s verdict finding Brinkley guilty
of attempted first-degree murder was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. According to testimony during trial, on June 14, 2023, Troy Martin agreed to sell
drugs to Marco Gentry. Martin asked Gentry to meet him at a gas station in Olive Branch,
Mississippi. When Gentry arrived at the gas station, he got in the front passenger seat of
Martin’s car, and Brinkley got in the back seat behind Martin. Martin testified that during the
drug transaction, Gentry asked him about a gun that was in the vehicle. Martin unloaded the
gun and handed the gun to Gentry. After Martin handed him the unloaded gun, Gentry got
out of the vehicle and began running. Martin testified that as Gentry was running away,
Brinkley tried to grab the backpack from the middle console of the car and flee as well. After
unsuccessfully trying to stop Brinkley from taking his backpack, Martin grabbed his other
gun, stepped out of the vehicle, and backed away from the vehicle. Martin testified that at
this point, Brinkley also exited the vehicle and began firing his weapon at him. Martin
1
Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-79 (Rev. 2020) states, “Every person who shall feloniously take or attempt to take from the person or from the presence the personal property of another and against his will by violence to his person or by putting such person in fear of immediate injury to his person by the exhibition of a deadly weapon shall be guilty of robbery[.]”
2
testified that he returned fire in self-defense because he was “worried about [his] life.” He
further testified that Brinkley fell and then ran off. After the shooting, Martin got into his
vehicle and drove away. Although Martin had been shot, he testified that he wanted to drive
home so that his mother could take him to the hospital. Before he could make it home, he
passed out and wrecked his vehicle.
¶3. When officers arrived at the scene after the shooting, witnesses told them which
direction the suspects went. Officer Jose Marquez, from the Olive Branch Police Department,
testified that while canvassing the area, officers heard a noise coming from an abandoned
building. Officers found Brinkley near the building and arrested him. Officer Marquez
further testified that he noticed blood coming from Brinkley’s groin area. After he was placed
into custody, Brinkley passed out, and paramedics were called to treat his injuries. While he
was being treated, Officer Marquez searched the abandoned building in which he found a
black backpack, later identified as Martin’s backpack.
¶4. In addition to testimony from Martin, Martin’s mother, and law enforcement officers,
the State also presented the recorded interview between Brinkley and an investigator. In the
video, Brinkley admitted to grabbing Martin’s backpack, pulling out a gun, and shooting at
Martin. At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, Brinkley moved for a directed verdict.
Brinkley argued that there was no testimony or evidence that he pulled a gun until after
Gentry got out of the vehicle with his gun. Defense counsel stated that it was “strong-armed
robbery at best because he took the bag physically.” He also argued Brinkley acted in selfdefense. The circuit court ultimately denied the motion. Brinkley did not present any
testimony on his behalf and rested his case.
3
¶5. After deliberations, the jury found Brinkley guilty of conspiracy to commit armed
robbery, armed robbery, and attempted first-degree murder. The jury was unable to agree on
the sentence for armed robbery and attempted first-degree murder. The circuit court
sentenced Brinkley to serve five years for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, a consecutive
term of thirty-five years for armed robbery, and thirty-five years for attempted first-degree
murder set to run concurrently with the armed-robbery sentence. The court further ordered
Brinkley to be placed on post-release supervision for ten years.
¶6. On November 7, 2024, Brinkley filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the
verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that the
evidence of Brinkley’s guilt overwhelmingly supported his convictions. Aggrieved, Brinkley
now appeals.
DISCUSSION
I. Sufficiency of Evidence
¶7. “We review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence de novo.” Jones v.
State, 380 So. 3d 974, 980 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024). “This Court will consider the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State ‘the benefit of all favorable
inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.’” Boudreaux v. State, 189 So.
3d 1274, 1279 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “The relevant question then becomes whether
‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.’” Id.
¶8. “The essential elements of armed robbery are: (1) a felonious taking or attempt to
take, (2) from the person or from the presence, (3) the personal property of another, (4)
4
against his will, (5) by violence to his person or by putting such person in fear of immediate
injury to his person by the exhibition of a deadly weapon.” Oliver v. State, 234 So. 3d 443,
445 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017), cert. denied, 233 So. 3d 822 (Miss. 2018); see also Love
v. State, 373 So. 3d 768, 773 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023). Similar to the argument the
defendant made in Oliver, Brinkley argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of armed robbery because he had already taken
the backpack before Martin was put in any fear by Brinkley brandishing a gun. In Oliver, the
defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for armed
robbery because the victim had “voluntarily relinquished possession of the phone” before
putting the victim in fear by the exhibition of the gun. Oliver, 234 So. 3d at 446 (¶15).
However, this Court found that “the taking occurred when Oliver refused to return the
phone[] and exhibited a deadly weapon to intimidate or cause fear in [the victim] in order to
keep it. The taking was not complete until Oliver drove out of [the victim]’s presence with
the phone.” Id. at (¶6)
¶9. Likewise, Brinkley’s claim that Martin was put in fear by the exhibition of a gun after
he had already taken Martin’s property is without merit. Martin testified that Brinkley
stepped out of the vehicle with the backpack and immediately pulled out his gun. Martin
testified that Brinkley put him in fear of immediate injury to his person when he pointed the
gun at him and fired it. Brinkley was still in the process of taking the backpack as they shot
at each other before Brinkley ran away. The taking was not complete until Brinkley ran away
5
from Martin with the stolen backpack.2 Therefore, considering the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State, we find there was sufficient evidence presented for a rational jury to
find Brinkley guilty of armed robbery.
II. Weight of the Evidence
¶10. Brinkley next argues that the conviction of attempted first-degree murder is against
the weight of the evidence. When weight of the evidence is raised on appeal, this Court
“must not disturb the jury’s verdict unless it is convinced that the verdict is so contrary to the
overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an
unconscionable injustice.” Gunn v. State, 374 So. 3d 1206, 1212 (¶21) (Miss. 2023). “In
reviewing a weight-of-the-evidence challenge, we must also view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict.” Id. “We do not re[-]weigh evidence. We do not reassess the
witnesses’ credibility. And we do not resolve conflicts between evidence. Those decisions
belong solely to the jury.” Davis v. State, 422 So. 3d 1043, 1047 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2025).
Brinkley specifically contends that the State failed to provide evidence of intent to murder,
malice, premeditation, or deliberate design.
¶11. Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-1-7(2) (Rev. 2020) provides that “[e]very
person who shall design and endeavor to commit an act which, if accomplished, would
2
A taking that qualifies as armed robbery under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-79 must involve force or intimidation by the exhibition of a deadly weapon. The use of force or putting the victim in fear of immediate bodily injury can constitute the crime of armed robbery when employed prior to or contemporaneously with the taking of the victim’s property. See Jones v. State, 281 So. 3d 137, 147 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019); Boyd v. State, 383 So. 3d 1280, 1289 (¶43) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024); McKeithan v. State, 233 So. 3d 318, 323 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018).
6
constitute an offense of murder under Section 97-3-19, but shall fail therein, or shall be
prevented from committing the same, shall be guilty of attempted murder.” “Courts interpret
‘attempt’ to mean the intent to do something, and some actual effort to put the intent into
effect.” Arnold v. State, 393 So. 3d 1096, 1108 (¶33) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Sullivan
v. State, 281 So. 3d 1146, 1162 (¶38) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)). Our Supreme Court has held
that “intent may be proved from facts surrounding the case[,] [and] a jury may infer guilty
intent when considering the totality of the circumstances.” Quinn v. State, 408 So. 3d 637,
641 (¶27) (Miss. 2025). Additionally, it is well established that deliberate design “may be
inferred through the intentional use of any instrument[,] which based on its manner of use,
is calculated to produce death or serious bodily injury.” Watts v. State, 402 So. 3d 744, 749
(¶20) (Miss. 2025).
¶12. The State presented testimony from Martin narrating how Brinkley snatched his
backpack, exited the vehicle, and aimed his gun at Martin, and they began shooting at each
other. Martin was shot multiple times, and he testified that he was worried about his life. The
jury also heard testimony from the law enforcement officers about the course of their
investigation. The State also presented a video of Brinkley’s interrogation wherein he
admitted to pulling a gun and shooting at Martin. Accordingly, because the jury’s verdict
finding Brinkley guilty of attempted first-degree murder was not against the overwhelming
weight of the evidence, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion by denying Brinkley’s
motion for a new trial.
CONCLUSION
¶13. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Brinkley’s convictions and sentences.
7
¶14. AFFIRMED.
BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS,
McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY, EMFINGER AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ.,
CONCUR.
8