Appeals court overturns robbery conviction

An Augusta man serving a life sentence in prison should not have been convicted, the Court of Appeals of Georgia ruled.

In an opinion released earlier this month, the appellate court agreed with James M. Robinson that there was insufficient evidence for a jury to have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Robinson was tried along with Elmonte Surry and Xavious Bell in Richmond County Superior Court in April 2015. The three were accused of the armed robberies of J.R. Riles and several customers at Riles' Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard convenience store the night of Dec. 29, 2012.

All three were convicted. Robinson and Surry were sentenced to life plus 35 years, and Bell was sentenced to life plus 30 years. Appeals have not yet been filed for Surry and Bell.

According to evidence presented at trial, the victims at JR's Stop and Shop noticed three young men come into the store that night to buy snacks. Not long afterward, the three returned. One, who wore a mask, was armed. The robbers took $200 from the cash register and jewelry, cash and cellphones from Riles and the other men. They also took the victims' pants and the keys to two vehicles.

One of the victims identified Surry and Bell from a photo lineup. None of the victims identified Robinson.

The only evidence against Robinson was the statement from a fourth initial suspect in the robbery who said he bought some of the victims' jewelry from Robinson, who is short as was the robber with the gun. The other evidence was testimony of a Department of Juvenile Justice employee who said that he missed a call the morning after the robbery and that when he called the number back he heard a voicemail message from Riles. Robinson had an appointment with the officer that day.

"Robinson contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt due to a lack of evidence linking him to the crimes. We agree," the opinion reads.

The appellate court ruled that although evidence that someone recently and without explanation possessed stolen property creates an inference that the defendant is guilty, it is not enough to support a conviction.

"The evidence (against Robinson) raises a suspicion, but a conviction cannot rest upon mere suspicion," the opinion states.