State v. Davenport

379 So.3d 821

55,461 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/10/24)

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee

v.Brandon Quinton DAVENPORT, Appellant

No. 55,461-KA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment Rendered January 10, 2024

Rehearing Denied February 20, 2024

Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana, Trial Court No. 382,584, Honorable Christopher T. Victory, Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, Monroe, By: Peggy J. Sullivan, Counsel for Appellant

JAMES E. STEWART, SR., District Attorney, REBECCA ARMAND EDWARDS, BRITTANY B. ARVIE, Assistant District Attorneys, Counsel for Appellee

Before PITMAN, THOMPSON, and HUNTER, JJ.

THOMPSON, J.

₁Brandon Quinton Davenport, who was 39 years old at the time, engaged in a sexual relationship at work with a 14-year-old girl who was employed washing vehicles in the same service department of a Shreveport automobile dealership. When the girl’s father learned of this relationship, he contacted the police. Davenport was interviewed by police, and upon questioning, admitted to engaging in a sexual relationship with the young victim. The victim also confirmed the relationship, including during her testimony at trial. Davenport was convicted by a unanimous jury of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile, and after being adjudicated a second felony habitual offender, was sentenced to 15 years at hard labor, without benefits of probation or suspension of sentence. Davenport now appeals his conviction, claiming there was insufficient evidence to convict him and that his sentence was constitutionally excessive. For the following reasons, we affirm his conviction and sentence and remand with instructions regarding the trial court notifying Davenport of his obligation to register as a convicted sex offender.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 26, 2021, John Dupree ("Dupree") contacted the Shreveport Police Department to report his suspicions that his 14-year-old daughter, E.D., was having sex with and had become pregnant by a 39-year-old man, who happened to be a coworker, named Brandon Davenport ("Davenport"). The father, daughter, and Davenport all worked together at a Shreveport automobile dealership’s service center. E.D. assisted in washing and detailing cars with her father’s permission. While working with each other, Davenport apparently befriended E.D.

₂Dupree explained to the police that he had noticed E.D. began wearing baggy clothes, and that he suspected she was pregnant. Prior to Dupree making this report to police, E.D. admitted the pregnancy to her family but did not identify who the father was at that time. Dupree subsequently learned from other family members that E.D. had advised she believed Davenport was actually the father of her child. Upon learning this, Dupree reviewed E.D.’s phone records, which revealed that she (14) and Davenport (39) had in fact been in communication with one another outside of work. Dupree promptly notified law enforcement about the situation.

In response to Dupree’s report, the Shreveport Police contacted E.D. at her home and conducted an initial interview that same day. E.D. admitted to her friendship with Davenport and expressed a desire to be in a relationship with him. E.D. also stated to the police that she had sex with Davenport multiple times in the vehicles at the car wash at the dealership.

Following Dupree’s report, Officer Michael Schulz with the Shreveport Police Department contacted Davenport at the car dealership and took him into custody without incident. Davenport was transported to the police station, where an interview was conducted after Davenport signed a form acknowledging his Miranda rights. During his police ₃interview, Davenport confessed to having a sexual relationship with E.D.

On April 28, 2021, the Gingerbread House conducted an interview with E.D. E.D. stated that she worked with Davenport at the car wash at Holmes Honda. E.D. explained that while detailing cars, she and Davenport began "messing around." E.D. explained that "messing around" meant having sex and that it happened more than once. She claimed, at that time, that she had only had sex with Davenport; it is later discovered that this assertion was not truthful. E.D. confirmed she was aware of Davenport’s age. In her Gingerbread House interview, E.D. stated that she had consensual sex with Davenport when she was 14 and that it happened more than five times. On May 24, 2021, the State filed a bill of information charging Davenport with felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile, occurring during the period of July 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, the time period during which E.D. confirmed the sexual relationship was ongoing.

On January 6, 2022, the trial court conducted a "Gingerbread hearing" to determine the admissibility at trial of E.D.’s forensic interview at the Gingerbread House. A free and voluntary hearing was also held to determine the admissibility of Davenport’s recorded statement he had made to police admitting to the sexual relationship with 14-₄year-old E.D. The trial court took the matters under advisement. On January 26, 2022, the trial court ruled E.D.’s videotaped interview would be admissible at trial, and that Davenport’s statement was freely and voluntarily made and would also be admissible at trial.

Jury selection began on September 26, 2022. On September 27, 2022, opening statements were presented and then witnesses were called to testify. E.D., the victim, testified at trial, and her videotaped Gingerbread interview was played for the jury. E.D.’s father, Dupree, was also called as a witness and testified that he learned about her relationship with Davenport through family members. He testified that he checked his daughter’s cellphone records and noticed many calls were to the same number. He testified that he verified that it was Davenport’s phone number in his daughter’s phone records. He then testified that he reported Davenport to police after learning of the sexual nature of the relationship. Dupree also testified that E.D. admitted to him that she had been having sex with Davenport.

Shreveport Police Detective Rodney Stewart testified that he interviewed Davenport pursuant to the investigation resulting from Dupree’s call to police about his daughter. Det. Stewart advised Davenport was Mirandized and that Davenport signed a Miranda form prior to his interview with ₅police. Det. Stewart also confirmed Davenport’s statement was re- corded, and it was then introduced into evidence at trial. Detective Stewart further testified that Davenport initially denied being the father of E.D.’s child, but that after being questioned for some time and being accused of lying, he was told a DNA test would resolve the issue in his favor if he was in fact being truthful. It was only then that Davenport admitted to consensual sex with E.D. Det. Stewart testified that the results of DNA testing of the child born to E.D. ultimately showed that Davenport was in fact not the father of E.D.’s child.¹ Evidence at trial also established that Davenport was previously required to register as a sex offender for a 2004 felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile conviction in Vermillion Parish, where the victim in that case was also a 14-year-old girl.

At the conclusion of the one-day trial, the six-person jury² returned a unanimous verdict of guilty as charged of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile. Davenport filed a motion of post-verdict judgment of acquittal on October 10, 2022. On October 18, 2022, the State filed a bill to enhance ₆Davenport’s sentencing range, charging him as a second felony habitual offender based on the present conviction and a prior conviction from April 26, 2019, for possession with intent to distribute synthetic marijuana, a Schedule I CDS. On November 28, 2022, Davenport was adjudicated by the trial court as a second felony offender and sentenced to serve a term of 15 years at hard labor without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence. A motion to reconsider sentence was timely filed, which was denied by the trial court This appeal by Davenport followed.

DISCUSSION

Davenport asserts two assignments of error, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile and that his habitual offender sentence of 15 years is excessive.

Assignment of Error No. 1: The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Davenport was guilty of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile.

Davenport asserts that the only physical evidence in this case was the infant born to E.D., who was not his child. Davenport argues that his statement to police came only after he had been called a liar and advised by police that admitting he had engaged in a consensual relationship with E.D. would benefit him. Davenport argues that his statement only shows that he was trying to say what he needed to say to help himself and is not sufficient evidence ₇to support his criminal conviction of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile.

[1, 2] 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, 01-1658 (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 codified in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not afford appellate courts with a means to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder. State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So. 2d 517.

[3–5] The Jackson standard is applicable to cases involving both direct and circumstantial evidence. An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in such cases must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light...