State v. Bell
| Decision Date | 22 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-KA-599 |
| Citation | 343 So.3d 914 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Perry BELL |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
343 So.3d 914
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Perry BELL
NO. 21-KA-599
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 2022
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr., Metairie, Thomas J. Butler, Zachary L. Grate
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, PERRY BELL, Bertha M. Hillman
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, PERRY BELL, In Proper Person
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Stephen J. Windhorst, and Hans J. Liljeberg
WINDHORST, J.
Defendant/appellant, Perry Bell, appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On July 31, 2020, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of information charging Bell with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1. After a one-day trial on April 15, 2021, a twelve-person jury unanimously found defendant guilty as charged.
On May 4, 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant to fifteen years imprisonment
at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence and ordered defendant to pay a fine of one thousand dollars. Immediately thereafter, the State filed an habitual offender bill of information alleging defendant to be a second-felony offender.
After an habitual offender bill hearing on May 13, 2021, the trial court adjudicated defendant a second-felony offender. The trial court vacated defendant's original sentence and sentenced him as an habitual offender to twenty years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Defendant made a motion for reconsideration of sentence regarding the enhanced sentence, which the trial court denied. Defendant also filed a motion for appeal, which the trial court granted. This appeal followed.
The testimony and evidence at trial revealed the following. On July 1, 2020, a 9-1-1 caller reported that multiple males were shooting dice and had guns on their hips in the area of 28 Helen Street.1 The Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office dispatched Sergeant Emily Brinser to investigate. According to Sergeant Brinser's testimony at trial, the following occurred upon her arrival at the scene in a marked police unit. Multiple males began running towards the back of an apartment complex but defendant, who was wearing a bright, lime green shirt and carrying a gun with a blue handle in his hand, ran alone in a different direction. She focused her attention on defendant and told the other officers in the area about the other males.
As she followed defendant, he ran along the side of a building before turning a corner. Defendant was briefly out of her sight but came back by himself with his hands up and holding a cell phone. Defendant asked Sergeant Brinser why she was stopping him, and she responded by asking him about the gun. At that point, Sergeant Brinser had Deputy Boyken, who had recently arrived, detain defendant. She then went around the corner and saw the gun underneath an air conditioning unit. She testified that she could see the blue handle of the gun sticking out from underneath the air conditioner vent. She took custody of the firearm because there were no other officers who could have stayed by the gun, and there were "lots of children in that area."
At trial, Sergeant Brinser identified the firearm that she recovered from underneath the air conditioner unit as State's Exhibit 7. She stated that it was the same firearm that she saw in defendant's hand as he turned the corner. She confirmed that she was able to clearly identify it as a firearm as defendant was running away and that defendant was the only person in the area where the gun was located.
David Cox, a JPSO expert in DNA testing analytics and procedures, testified that objects taken from an individual's possession or seen in that individual's possession are not eligible for DNA testing. He also indicated that the laboratory would not conduct a test in this situation even if the District Attorney's Office requested testing the item.
Dona Quintanilla of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office Crime Laboratory testified as an expert in fingerprint examination and comparison. Ms. Quintanilla identified a ten-print fingerprint card as State's Exhibit 2 containing the fingerprints of defendant that she had previously
taken prior to testifying. She also identified defendant in open court. She stated that she matched defendant's fingerprints to those affixed to certified court records for a 2014 conviction for manslaughter and that another analyst confirmed her findings.
Law and Analysis
In defense counsel's brief, defendant challenges the alleged excessiveness of his enhanced sentence. In a pro se brief, defendant alleges the following: (1) insufficient evidence to support the verdict; (2) denial of the right to self-representation; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. He contends there is insufficient evidence to establish that he possessed the weapon and attacks the credibility of Sergeant Brinser. Based on the following, we find this assignment of error lacks merit.
An appellate court reviews whether evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Garrison, 19-62 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/23/20), 297 So.3d 190, 203, writ denied, 20-00547 (La. 9/23/20), 301 So.3d 1190, and cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 2864, 210 L.Ed.2d 967 (2021). The trier of fact makes credibility determinations and may, within the bounds of rationality, accept or reject the testimony of any witness. State v. Harmon, 19-570 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/9/20), 301 So.3d 1278, 1284, writ denied, 20-1160 (La. 10/14/20), 303 So.3d 306. A reviewing court may impinge on the fact finder's discretion only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.
La. R.S. 14:95.1 sets forth the elements for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which reads, in pertinent part:
A. It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(B), which is a felony or simple burglary, burglary of a pharmacy, burglary of an inhabited dwelling, unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling, felony illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities, manufacture or possession of a delayed action incendiary device, manufacture or possession of a bomb, or any violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law which is a felony, or any crime which is defined as a sex offense in R.S. 15:541, or any crime defined as an attempt to commit one of the above-enumerated offenses under the laws of this state, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial