State v. Adams

285 So.3d 526

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee

v.Roderick ADAMS, Appellant

No. 53,055-KA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered November 20, 2019.

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT By: Carey J. Ellis, III, Counsel for Appellant

RODERICK ADAMS, Pro Se

ROBERT S. TEW, District Attorney, JOHN G. SPIRES, Assistant District Attorney, Counsel for Appellee

Before WILLIAMS, GARRETT, and THOMPSON, JJ.

WILLIAMS, C.J.

The defendant, Roderick Adams, was charged by bill of information with armed robbery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:64, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:64 and 14:26. After a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve 50 years at hard labor for the armed robbery conviction and 25 years at hard labor for the conspiracy conviction. Both sentences were imposed without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence and were ordered to run concurrently. Defendant's timely filed motion to reconsider sentence was denied. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

The record shows that after midnight on August 4, 2016, in Bastrop, Louisiana, three young males approached elderly Hubert Williams, ordered him to the ground at gunpoint and robbed him of his debit card and his cell phone. Defendant was later identified as a suspect and arrested for the offense. The following testimony was adduced at trial.

Captain Kesonya Lynch with the Bastrop Police Department ("BPD") testified that on August 4, 2016, she responded to a call of a prowler in the area of Van and Pleasant Streets in Bastrop. Cpt. Lynch stated that when she arrived at the address of the caller, a woman pointed toward a man in the street, Hubert Williams, who said that he needed a ride home and appeared to be intoxicated. Cpt. Lynch testified that she knew Williams as a drinker from previous contact with him and gave him a ride. She stated that during the drive, Williams said he had been robbed by three young black men in the area of Pleasant and George Streets. Cpt. Lynch testified that Williams told her the men had taken his cell phone and money and he described one man as "light-skinned with dreads, a little black one and a smaller one that was a little lighter than the black one." Cpt. Lynch testified that when she returned to duty for her next shift she learned of a call about juveniles displaying a firearm at the Eden Apartments, a location which was near the scene of the Williams robbery. According to Cpt. Lynch, she went to Eden Apartments and encountered Sergeant Carl Givens, who said that the two juveniles with whom he had spoken had been released and were not present. Cpt. Lynch testified that Sgt. Givens' description of the young men matched the description of the assailants previously provided by Williams.

Sergeant Givens, also of the BPD, testified that he responded to the call regarding juveniles displaying a firearm near the office of the Eden Apartments. Sgt. Givens stated that he recognized two of the individuals as defendant and Troy Minnieweather. Sgt. Givens testified that defendant's hair was in "dreads" at that time and matched the description that Williams had given Cpt. Lynch. According to Sgt. Givens, the officers searched the area but did not locate a weapon. Sgt. Givens testified that the Eden Apartments are in close proximity to where the Williams robbery occurred and corroborated Cpt. Lynch's testimony that Williams was known as a functional alcoholic.

Minnieweather, one of the co-perpetrators, testified that he had pled guilty to conspiracy to commit the armed robbery of Williams along with Jarious Jimmerson and defendant, who had pointed a shotgun at the victim. Minnieweather stated that they took the victim's cell phone and debit card before returning to the Eden Apartments.

Hubert Williams testified that in August 2016, he was robbed by three young men after midnight as he walked on George Street. Williams stated that defendant pulled a shotgun out of his pants leg, pointed the gun at his head and told him to get down on the ground. Williams testified that he was begging the men not to shoot him as they went through his pockets. He stated that the men took his cell phone, $200 in cash and his debit card and then walked away in the direction of the Eden Apartments. Williams testified that he went to a house to ask for a phone, but the owner told him to leave the property. Williams stated that when Cpt. Lynch arrived a short time later, he told her he had been robbed and needed a ride home. Williams testified that he was shown a photo lineup and identified defendant and Minnieweather as two of his assailants. Williams admitted that he has several felony convictions and has been incarcerated on several occasions.

Bastrop Police Detective Leondrio Reed testified that during the investigation of the Williams robbery, defendant gave a recorded statement admitting that he was present at the robbery with Minnieweather and Jimmerson. In the statement, which was introduced into evidence and played for the jury at trial, defendant stated that the three young men had encountered an old man walking along the street and Jimmerson pointed a gun at the victim. During the statement, defendant claimed that the only thing taken from the victim was a cell phone. Det. Reed further testified that the robbery victim, Williams, had identified defendant from a photo lineup as the assailant with the shotgun.

After the close of evidence, the jury found defendant guilty as charged of armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Defendant was sentenced to serve concurrent sentences of 50 years for the armed robbery conviction and 25 years for the conspiracy conviction, both without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

In his pro se brief, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because no gun was recovered and the testimony of the victim lacked credibility. Defendant asserts that the victim's suggestion that he pulled a shotgun from his pants is physically impossible. He also questions the credibility of Minnieweather's testimony, arguing that Minnieweather testified in exchange for a favorable deal with the state.

When sufficiency of the evidence is raised on appeal, that issue should be addressed first because if the accused is entitled to an acquittal, then the matter is ended. Hudson v. Louisiana , 450 U.S. 40, 101 S.Ct. 970, 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981) ; State v. Manning , 38,083 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/12/04), 868 So.2d 283.

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is 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 proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979) ; State v. Tate , 2001-1658 (La. 5/20/03), 851 So. 2d 921, cert. denied , 541 U.S. 905, 124 S. Ct. 1604, 158 L. Ed. 2d 248 (2004). This standard, now legislatively embodied in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder. State v. Pigford , 2005-0477 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So. 2d 517.

The trier of fact makes credibility determinations and may accept or reject the testimony of any witness. State v. Casey , 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So. 2d 1022, cert. denied , 531 U.S. 840, 121 S. Ct. 104, 148 L. Ed. 2d 62 (2000). In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, one witness's testimony, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion. State v. Robinson , 50,643 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/22/16), 197 So. 3d 717, writ denied , 2016-1479 (La. 5/19/17), 221 So. 3d 78. The appellate court does not assess credibility or reweigh the evidence. State v. Smith , 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d 442 ; State v. Green , 49,741 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/15/15), 164 So.3d 331.

Direct evidence provides proof of the existence of a fact, for example, a witness's testimony that he saw or heard something. State v. Lilly , 468 So. 2d 1154 (La. 1985). Circumstantial evidence provides proof of collateral facts and circumstances, from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. Id. When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438 ; Lilly, supra . The trier of fact is charged with weighing the credibility of this evidence and, on review, the same standard as in Jackson v. Virginia is applied, giving great deference to the fact finder's conclusions. State v. Green, supra . When the trier of fact reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence advanced by a defendant, the hypothesis fails, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt. State v. Sosa , 2005-0213 (La. 1/19/06), 921 So. 2d 94.

Where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, the matter is one of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. Green, supra ; State v. Glover , 47,311 (La. App. 2 Cir. 10/10/12), 106 So. 3d 129, writ denied , 2012-2667 (La. 5/24/13), 116 So. 3d 659. Such testimony alone is sufficient even where the state does not introduce medical, scientific or physical evidence. State v. Larkins , 51,540 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/17), 243 So. 3d 1220, writ denied , 2017-1900 (La. 9/28/18), 253 So.3d 154.

Armed robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to...