State v. Fontenot
| Decision Date | 02 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | 16-226 |
| Citation | 207 So.3d 589 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Cody Keith FONTENOT a/k/a Cody Fontenot |
| 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: Cody Keith Fontenot
Trent Brignac, District Attorney, Thirteenth Judicial District, Julhelene E. Jackson, Assistant District Attorney, P. O. Drawer 780, Ville Platte, LA 70586, (337) 363-3438, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana
Court composed of James T. Genovese, Phyllis M. Keaty, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.
On September 2, 2014, the Defendant, Cody Keith Fontenot a/k/a Cody Fontenot, was charged by bill of information with one count of simple burglary, a violation of La.R.S. 14:62 ; and one count of theft of a motor vehicle, a violation of La.R.S. 14:67.26. The Defendant pled not guilty to the charges on September 25, 2014. Thereafter, on February 2, 2015, an amended bill of information was filed to specify the value of the motor vehicle stolen in count two as $1,500.00 or more. The Defendant pled not guilty to the amended bill on August 4, 2015. On that same date, the Defendant's trial by jury began, and, on August 5, 2015, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts. Defense counsel moved for a post-verdict judgment of acquittal based on the lack of expert or appraisal evidence as to the value of the motor vehicle. The trial court denied the motion.
On November 19, 2015, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twelve years at hard labor and a $1,500.00 fine for simple burglary. On the charge of theft of a motor vehicle valued at $1,500.00 or more, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to ten years at hard labor and a fine of $1,500.00. The trial court ordered five years of the theft of a motor vehicle sentence to run consecutively to the sentence for simple burglary.
The Defendant filed a motion for appeal, which was granted. He alleged three assignments of error regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and the ineffective performance of counsel. For the following reasons, we affirm.
In June 2014, a 1999 GMC truck was stolen from Robert Manuel's place of business. The Defendant was originally named as the perpetrator by his then-girlfriend, Sara Navarre. Recanting her initial statement, Sara (now the Defendant's wife) stated at trial that she was the person who stole the truck and that she initially blamed the Defendant to force him into drug rehab.
In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find no errors patent.
In these assignments of error, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of simple burglary and theft of a motor vehicle valued at $1,500.00 or more. Appellate counsel asserts error as to both the credibility of the State's main witness, Sara Navarre, and insufficiency as to the elements of both offenses.
The analysis for insufficiency of the evidence claims is well-settled:
When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court 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, rehearing denied , 444 U.S. 890, 100 S.Ct. 195, 62 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979) ; State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King , 436 So.2d 559 (La.1983) ; State v. Duncan , 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982) ; State v. Moody , 393 So.2d 1212 (La.1981). It is the role of the fact finder to weigh the respective credibility of the witnesses, and therefore, the appellate court should not second guess the credibility determinations of the triers of fact beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review. See State ex rel. Graffagnino , 436 So.2d 559 (citing State v. Richardson , 425 So.2d 1228 (La.1983) ). In order for this Court to affirm a conviction, however, the record must reflect that the state has satisfied its burden of proving the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Kennerson , 96–1518, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/97), 695 So.2d 1367, 1371.
The first witness to testify for the State was Marie Potter, a former detective with the Mamou Police Department. On Monday, June 30, 2014, Detective Potter was contacted by Sara Navarre. Detective Potter picked Sara up and brought her to the police station. When asked what Sara told her, Detective Potter responded:
Um that her boyfriend at the time uh it was her boyfriend Cody had she had [sic] brought him to the Ville Platte area to steal a truck a few days before like during the weekend and um that she dropped him off and that he stole the truck and she told me that uh he parked it at Town Foods which is a store catty-corner from where her apartment was and she said that at one point he parked it at her apartment and she told him that he could not park it there because she knew it was stolen. She didn't want to get in trouble. So he moved it to a house which is a like a block over maybe and it was a house that he was doing uh some kind of construction work at. And um then I called in actually when I found out where it was stolen, that's when I called in Detective Albarado because he ... it's actually his jurisdiction where it was stolen.
According to Detective Potter, Sara called the victim of the theft "Uncle Bob."
When asked if she was able to verify the things Sara said, Detective Potter replied:
Yes I did. I called patrol, which happened to be Chris Paul. Um asked him if he could go check out that area and see if there was in fact a truck there while I was in the office with Sarah [sic] and he called back and he stated that there was in fact a truck there.
According to Detective Potter, all of the information given to her by Sara checked out. Detective Potter testified that Sara relayed the same information to Detective Justin Albarado and that Sara actually wrote a handwritten statement. Sara, however, tore up the handwritten statement.
While Sara was present with Detective Potter and Detective Albarado, the Defendant called her. Sara put the phone on speakerphone so the detectives could hear the conversation. Detective Potter relayed the conversation as follows:
On cross-examination, Detective Potter admitted couples often will accuse each other and then later change their stories. Detective Potter also testified she had seen family members attempt to press charges against someone as leverage to get that person into rehab. According to Detective Potter, she had seen this type of thing happen quite a lot. When asked if she would describe Sara's life as "pretty tough" over the last few years, Detective Potter answered, "Based on my observation, yes." The following colloquy took place as to Sara's statements regarding the Defendant's drug addiction:
Detective Potter testified that she was aware Sara completely changed her statement later on. When asked if it was possible Sara stole the truck and blamed the Defendant, Detective Potter answered, "Based on what I handled with the case, ‘No,’ because I listened to him on the phone." Detective Potter explained she heard the Defendant admit "it" to Sara on the phone, so she had no reason to disbelieve Sara.
On re-direct, Detective Potter agreed Sara's initial statement was corroborated by physical evidence, i.e., the truck was stolen, and the truck was exactly where Sara said it would be. When asked if, based on her experience, Sara's first statement appeared to be truthful, Detective Potter replied, "Yes." Finally, Detective Potter testified that she knew it was "Cody" that called Sara while Sara was at the police station because Detective Potter recognized his voice.
Christopher Scott Paul, a former officer with the Mamou Police Department, was working as a Lieutenant Patrol Supervisor on June 30, 2014. Lieutenant Paul received a call from Detective Potter on June 30, 2014, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. D.D.
... ... See 288 So.3d 836 State v. Fontenot , 16-226, p. 19 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/2/16), 207 So.3d 589, 600 (where the court found the jury not only heard the evidence that corroborated the victim's initial statements but also discredited the victim's recantation at trial.) Recantations have been found to be suspicious. See State v. Hurst ... ...
-
State v. Williams (In re In re Williams)
...reasoning ignores the need to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.¶22 Foreign cases support our conclusion. State v. Fontenot, 2016-226 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/16), 207 So.3d 589, illustrates what evidence may be sufficient. The Fontenot court held the evidence sufficient to prove that a truck t......
-
State v. Trosclair
...testimony of the property's owner is sufficient to establish that property's value when it is taken in a theft. State v. Fontenot , 16-226 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/16), 207 So.3d 589. "Unless it is shown the owner lacks knowledge of the value of a movable, his testimony as to value is generally......
-
State v. Talbert
...instruction is not required when the codefendant's testimony is corroborated by surrounding circumstances. State v. Fontenot , 16-226 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/16), 207 So.3d 589. The evidence discussed above materially corroborated Mr. Anderson's testimony. Here, the issue of misidentification ......