State v. Jones

366 So.3d 821

STATE of Louisiana v. Craig M. JONES

NO. 22-KA-527

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

May 24, 2023

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr., Metairie, Thomas J. Butler, Monique D. Nolan, Eric Cusimano, Stephen Downer

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, CRAIG M. JONES, Prentice L. White

DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, CRAIG M. JONES, In Proper Person

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Jude G. Gravois, and Cornelius E. Regan, Pro Tempore

GRAVOIS, J.

Defendant, Craig M. Jones, was convicted of first degree robbery and attempted carjacking. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant's convictions and sentences. However, based on our errors patent review, we remand this matter to the trial court for correction of the sentencing minute entry and the Louisiana Uniform Commitment Order, as discussed below.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 28, 2022, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of information charging defendant with armed robbery with a firearm in violation of La. R.S. 14:64 (count one), attempted carjacking in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:64.2 (count two), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (count three). On March 29, 2022, defendant pled not guilty. On August 8, 2022, count one of the bill of information was amended to change the enumeration of the statute violated to a violation of La. R.S. 14:64.3, ¹ and on the same date, defendant entered a plea of not guilty.

On August 9, 2022, the case proceeded to trial, and on August 10, 2022, the twelve-person jury found defendant guilty of the lesser offense of first degree robbery in violation of La. R.S. 14:64.1 on count one, guilty as charged on count two, and not guilty on count three.

On August 22, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to thirty-five years’ imprisonment in the Department of Corrections as to count one and eight years’ imprisonment as to count two. The trial court further ordered these sentences to be served consecutively with each other. Thereafter, on September 8, 2022, defendant filed a written Motion for Appeal, which was granted by the trial court on September 15, 2022.

In his counseled appellate brief, defendant argues that the trial court erred by imposing an unconstitutionally excessive sentence. Additionally, in his pro se assignments of error, defendant argues that it was an error for the trial court to allow the introduction of prior offenses at his trial without a Prieur² hearing, and that the record does not contain evidence that the jury verdicts were unanimous.

FACTS

On January 27, 2022, Alonzo Duncan was at his grandmother's house on Sheldon Street in Metairie, Louisiana, performing maintenance work on his Pontiac Grand Prix, which he wanted to sell in order to purchase a new car for his daughter's college graduation. While he was looking at the Pontiac, an unknown man wearing a black jacket and black gloves, later identified as defendant, walked up to him and said, "I need to get that." Mr. Duncan did not initially understand what defendant wanted. Mr. Duncan testified that defendant then pointed a firearm ³ at him and said, "I need to get that car." Defendant removed the keys from Mr. Duncan's hand and drove away in the Pontiac. Mr. Duncan got into his other vehicle, an Avalanche, and followed defendant. ⁴

While driving away from Mr. Duncan, defendant hit a Chevy Silverado at South Sibley Street and Milan Street. ⁵ Defendant then left the scene of that accident in the Pontiac, driving toward Airline Drive. Mr. Duncan continued to follow defendant. Once Mr. Duncan arrived on Airline Drive, he saw that his Pontiac had been involved in another accident and that defendant had fled the scene. Subsequently, while at the scene of the accident on Airline Drive, Mr. Duncan identified defendant as the person who pointed a firearm at him and took his Pontiac.

On January 27, 2022, Ricardo Cedillo was driving his Dodge Ram truck on Airline Drive with his wife as a passenger. As he was turning right onto Roosevelt Boulevard, a silver Pontiac hit his Dodge. After the impact, the Pontiac hit a pole and crossed several lanes of travel resulting in the Pontiac being "destroyed." Mr. Cedillo testified that as a result of the accident, his wife was hurt and received medical treatment. Mr. Cedillo testified that he saw a man get out of the Pontiac that hit him, but he was not able to make an identification of the driver.

Ryan Griffin was driving on Airline Drive on January 27, 2022, when he heard a noise that sounded like a car wreck behind him. ⁶ He testified that when he looked over, he saw a Pontiac "flying past" him on the shoulder. He watched the Pontiac hit and ricochet off a telephone pole, almost hitting his Chevy truck. When the Pontiac came to a rest in the median, Mr. Griffin exited his Chevy to check on defendant and to render aid. Defendant exited the Pontiac stumbling, appearing dazed and confused. ⁷ Mr. Griffin testified that defendant shoved Mr. Griffin away from him and ran toward Mr. Griffin's Chevy, jumping into the driver's seat. Mr. Griffin ran behind defendant and held the truck's door open. As Mr. Griffin reached into the Chevy, shut the ignition off, and started pulling the keys out, defendant started to "fight" with him, punching him and trying to rip Mr. Griffin's thumb off the keys. After Mr. Griffin was able to pull the keys out of the truck, defendant grabbed Mr. Griffin's arm and slammed it in the truck's door. Mr. Griffin was able to open the door and pull defendant out of his Chevy. Defendant then ran away from the accident scene. Later, Mr. Griffin identified defendant as the person who tried to steal his Chevy.

Officer Jordan Cusimano with the Kenner Police Department testified that on January 27, 2022, he responded to a call for service regarding a carjacking by a suspect wearing a black hoodie. Officer Cusimano first saw a man fitting the description of the suspect running on Tenth Street and relayed his location to other officers. Officer Michael George Romano with the Kenner Police Department received Officer Cusimano's location and saw the man running on "Fairway," then down an alley. Officer Romano then found defendant hiding underneath a raised house at 1020 Fairway and placed him under arrest. A firearm was not located on defendant when he was arrested. Officer Romano and other officers searched in and around the area where defendant was located; they were not able to locate a firearm.

John Walsdorf of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office testified that on January 27, 2022, he was contacted by the Kenner Police Department for assistance. Detective Walsdorf said that defendant was already in custody and an identification had been made prior to his arrival. Detective Walsdorf searched the Pontiac and did not locate a firearm. He collected defendant's clothes and one glove, and conducted a video-recorded interview of defendant at the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office Investigations Bureau. Detective Walsdorf identified the Miranda⁸ warnings form that he read to defendant in the interview. ⁹ After interviewing defendant, Detective Walsdorf prepared and obtained an arrest warrant for armed robbery, attempted carjacking, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

Excessiveness of sentences

In his only counseled assignment of error, defendant argues that his sentences are excessive because: 1) the trial court penalized defendant for possessing a firearm even though he was found not guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and he was found guilty of the lesser offense of first degree robbery and not the charged offense of armed robbery with a firearm; 2) he was sentenced near the statutory maximum; 3) he received a consecutive sentence; and 4) and the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering a presentence investigation or articulating into the record that it gave a meaningful review of defendant's age, education, employment history, or criminal background before the sentencing hearing.

Prior to sentencing, the trial court set forth detailed reasons for defendant's sentence, saying:

This was a case that we tried, I believe it was last week. Mr. Jones was charged with armed robbery with a firearm, I believe, attempted carjacking, convicted felon with a weapon. He was found not guilty of convicted felon with a weapon, he was found guilty of first degree robbery with – – for the armed robbery, and he was found guilty as charged from the attempted carjacking.

I watched the trial, I heard the testimony. There were two victims in the case. One of the victims, a fine gentleman, was outside his mother's house, fixing his car so that he can give the car to his daughter who was graduating from Xavier. His testimony was that the defendant walked up to him, pointing a gun at him, took the keys from him, took the car. He takes the car and he goes down Airline Highway at a high rate of speed. He gets into a car accident, he totals the car, he injures another car with some people in it, he gets out of

his car, and there's a Good Samaritan who stops and the Good Samaritan sees the defendant getting out of his car and he looks pretty hurt, and he's a little bit dazed. So the Good Samaritan gets out of his car and tries to help the defendant while the defendant tries to jump in his car and take his car. The Good Samaritan tries to stop him. There's a big fight. The Good Samaritan gets beat up. There's some bruising. The defendant is banging the door on his arm. The Good Samaritan is able to fight him off. The defendant runs about a couple of blocks away, and they find him underneath a house.

So throughout the trial by Mr. Jones, I was chastised throughout the trial. He didn't want to remain quiet. He told me that I wasn't treating him properly, I was treating him disrespectfully, wasn't treating him

...