State v. Ball
Decision Date | 07 December 2016 |
Docket Number | 16–653 |
Citation | 209 So.3d 793 |
Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Joshua Jerome BALL |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Annette Roach, Louisiana Appellate Project, P. O. Box 1747, Lake Charles, LA 70602–1747, (337) 436–2900, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Joshua Jerome Ball
Honorable James P. Lemoine, District Attorney, Thirty–Fifth Judicial District Court, Rhea Renee Nugent, Assistant District Attorney, P. O. Box 309, Colfax, LA 71417–0309, (318) 627–3205, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana
Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.
Defendant, Joshua Jerome Ball, was convicted of carnal knowledge of a juvenile in Pointe Coupee Parish in 2005, and, as a result, was required to comply with the sex offender registration and notification requirements set forth in La.R.S. 15:540, et seq.
Defendant was charged by bill of information with failure to register as a sex offender, a violation of La.R.S. 15:542; failure to notify law enforcement of a change of address, a violation of La.R.S. 15:542.1.2; and failure to provide notification as a sex offender, a violation of La.R.S. 15:542.1.Defendant entered a plea of not guilty.Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty as charged.Thereafter, Defendant filed a "Motion for a New Trial" and "Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Post Verdict Judgment of Acquittal or (in the Alternative) a New Trial," which were denied by the trial court.
Defendant was sentenced on May 12, 2016, to serve three and one-half years at hard labor, with the first two years to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, on each count, to run concurrently.Defendant was also ordered to pay a fine of five hundred dollars, court costs, and seven hundred fifty dollars to the Public Defender's Office.
Defendant timely appealed and asserts the following three assignments of error: 1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to seek quashal of the bill of information and failed to object to erroneous jury instructions; 2) the trial court erred in questioning witnesses during the trial, in the presence of the jury, without his consent; and 3) the evidence introduced at the trial was insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the elements of the charged offenses.For the following reasons, Defendant's convictions are affirmed.His sentences for failure to notify law enforcement of a change of address and failure to provide notification as a sex offender are affirmed.However, his sentence for failure to register as a sex offender is vacated, and the matter is remanded for resentencing.
In his third assignment of error, Defendant contends that the evidence introduced at the trial of this case, when viewed under the Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560(1979), standard, was insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the elements of the charged offenses.When the issues on appeal relate to both sufficiency of the evidence and one or more trial errors, we first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.State v. Hearold , 603 So.2d 731(La.1992).The rationale is that when the entirety of the evidence is insufficient to support the defendant's conviction, the defendant must be discharged as to that crime, and any issues regarding trial errors become moot.Id.Accordingly, we will first address Defendant's third assignment of error.
State v. Bryant , 12–233, pp. 4–7(La.10/16/12), 101 So.3d 429, 432–33, writ denied , 12–229 (La.1/25/13), 105 So.3d 61.
The bill of information states that "on or about March 13, 2014,"Defendant did commit the following offenses in Grant Parish:
On the date of the offenses, as set forth in the bill of information, La.R.S. 15:542.1.4 provided, in pertinent part:
Sex offender registration requirements are set forth, in pertinent part, in La.R.S. 15:542, which provided as follows on March 13, 2014:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Dominick
...received upon his release from confinement did not provide instructions as to what to do or whether to report to the sheriff's office even if he did not have a permanent residence. As noted by the Third Circuit in
State v. Ball, 16-653 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/7/16), 209 So.3d 793, "... Defendant's knowledge about the nuts and bolts of sex offender registration and notification is not relevant to a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions."With regard to... -
Quatrevingt v. State
...offense dates do not invoke a double jeopardy violation. See State v. Lodge , 2015-0538 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/25/16), 195 So.3d 567, 570, writ denied , 2016-1276 (La. 4/24/17), 221 So.3d 68 ; see also,
State v. Ball , 2016-653 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/7/16), 209 So.3d 793, 816, writ denied , 2017-0045 (La. 9/22/17), 227 So.3d 825. Collateral estoppel "means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be...