State v. Myrick
| Decision Date | 21 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 54,606-KA |
| Citation | 349 So.3d 92 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. Randolph W. MYRICK, Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, By: Douglas Lee Harville, Counsel for Appellant
JAMES E. STEWART, SR., District Attorney, REBECCA ARMAND EDWARDS, TRINICIA S. LEONARD, JASON WAYNE WALTMAN, VICTORIA T. WASHINGTON, Assistant District Attorneys, Counsel for Appellee
Before STONE, COX, and THOMPSON, JJ.
This criminal appeal arises from the First Judicial District Court, the Honorable Judge Donald E. Hathaway, Jr., presiding. The defendant, Randolph W. Myrick ("defendant"), was charged with simple burglary, in violation of La. R.S. 14:62. A unanimous jury found the defendant guilty as charged. The defendant was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment at hard labor, to run consecutively with any other sentence, and he was ordered to pay a fine of $50 through inmate banking. The defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence, arguing that the state failed to sufficiently prove that he was guilty of simple burglary and that his sentence is excessive. Based on the following reasons, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.
On September 2, 2020, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Cpl. Shelia Taylor ( ), of the Shreveport Police Department ("SPD") was patrolling and checking on businesses in the area of Greenwood Road when she noticed a lunch box on a bench outside of Bos-Man's Barbershop. She stopped her patrol car and shined a spotlight in the direction of the barbershop. Cpl. Taylor observed a large section of glass broken on the ground as well as the front door of the barbershop open. While attempting to notify dispatch, she saw someone run out of the store. She activated the lights and siren of her patrol car and pursued the defendant. After a five-minute chase, the defendant fell to the ground, and Cpl. Taylor arrested him. She advised him of his rights per Miranda , searched him, and discovered coins and a cigarette lighter on his person. The defendant was wearing eye glasses, a red bandana, a ball cap, a shirt and was in the process of removing gloves from his hands when he was caught. Other SPD officers arrived on the scene, and the owner, Shawn Boston ("Boston") was contacted.
Boston arrived shortly thereafter, and he and Cpl. Taylor entered the barbershop together. As Cpl. Taylor was capturing pictures of the crime scene, she questioned Boston about the various tools on the floor next to the vending machine, specifically, a tire wrench, pliers, flashlights, and a maul. SPD determined that none of the tools belonged to Boston. The vending machine appeared to be pried open and coins were found on the floor near it.
On September 28, 2020, the defendant was charged by bill of information with one count of simple burglary in violation of La. R.S. 14:62, and he elected to have a jury trial. The state called Cpl. Taylor, Boston, and Officer Xiomara Clement to testify. Cpl. Taylor was the first witness to testify, and she identified the defendant as the offender. She testified that the defendant was the only person she saw around or near the barbershop that night and all the businesses nearby were closed. Cpl. Taylor revealed that when the lights and sirens are activated on the patrol car, the camera inside the vehicle will start recording. The video recording of the incident was introduced as evidence and played for the jury. During her testimony, Cpl. Taylor confirmed that the content of the video footage was accurate and had not been altered. Also, the pictures taken from the barbershop were introduced as exhibits, and she identified various items in the pictures.
Boston testified that the barbershop was not damaged before it closed at 5:45 p.m. the day of the incident; he also testified that the front door and side door were locked. He further testified that he received a phone call from his alarm company at 11:04 p.m. informing him that the alarm to his shop had been triggered; he informed them not to dispatch the police to the shop because he is from that area and would just drive to his barbershop to check things himself. Boston recalled that on the drive to the shop, he received a phone call informing him that someone had broken into his barbershop. Boston further testified that when he arrived at the shop, he saw that the front door glass was broken and law enforcement had the defendant in custody. He testified that he did not know the defendant. Boston identified the defendant as the offender and denied that the tire wrench, pliers, flashlights, and a maul found on the scene belonged to him. Additionally, Boston testified that the burglary rendered the vending machine inoperable, and the cost to replace it totaled $4,966. He further testified that he paid $811.44 to repair the broken window and an additional $150 to securely board the shop until repairs could be completed.
At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant was found guilty of simple burglary. The defendant filed a motion for new trial and a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal, both of which were denied without a hearing. The defendant was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment at hard labor, to run consecutively with any other sentence, and he was ordered to pay a fine of $50 through inmate banking. On August 19, 2021, the defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence. The defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence, urging the following assignments of error: (1) insufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction; and (2) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence.
Sufficiency of evidence
In his first assignment of error, the defendant argues that the state presented insufficient evidence at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed simple burglary. The defendant contends that the state proved that the defendant committed unauthorized entry, but failed to prove that he intended to commit a felony or theft therein. Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the state did not present any fingerprints or DNA evidence to link him to the burglary tools, barbershop, vending machine, or the lunch box.
The state argues that the evidence established that: (1) an alert officer caught the defendant in the act of burglarizing the barbershop; (2) the defendant fled the scene and was apprehended by the officer after a short chase; (3) the defendant was attempting to remove gloves from his hands when he was stopped by the officer; (4) there was evidence of a forced entry; (5) burglary tools were found inside the barbershop near the damaged vending machine; (6) coins were scattered on the floor near the vending machine; (7) no one else was in the vicinity; and (8) the barbershop owner did not know the defendant.
The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the case in a 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. Leger , 17-2084 (La. 6/26/19), 284 So. 3d 609 ; 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) ; State v. Frost , 53,312 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/4/20), 293 So. 3d 708, writ denied , 20-00628 (La. 11/18/20), 304 So. 3d 416. This standard, now legislatively embodied in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the factfinder. State v. Steines , 51,698 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/15/17), 245 So. 3d 224, writ denied , 17-2174 (La. 10/8/18), 253 So. 3d 797. The trier of fact makes credibility determinations and may accept or reject the testimony of any witness. State v. Casey , 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So. 2d 1022, cert. denied , 531 U.S. 840, 121 S. Ct. 104, 148 L. Ed. 2d 62 (2000). The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. State v. Smith , 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d 442 ; State v. Dale , 50,195 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/18/15), 180 So. 3d 528, writ denied , 15-2291 (La. 4/4/16), 190 So. 3d 1203. A reviewing court affords great deference to a trial court's decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part. State v. Ward , 50,872 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/16/16), 209 So. 3d 228, writ denied , 17-0164 (La. 9/22/17), 227 So. 3d 827 ; State v. Eason , 43,788 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/25/09), 3 So. 3d 685, writ denied , 2009-0725 (La. 12/11/09), 23 So. 3d 913.
In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, one witness's testimony, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient to support a factual conclusion. State v. Elkins , 48,972 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/9/14), 138 So. 3d 769, writ denied , 14-0992 (La. 12/8/14), 153 So. 3d 438. The Jackson , supra , standard is applicable in cases involving both direct and circumstantial evidence. An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in such cases must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct evidence and inferred from the circumstances established by that evidence must be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. State v. Sutton , 436 So. 2d 471 (La. 1983) ; State v. Mingo , 51,647 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/17), 244 So. 3d 629, writ-denied , 17-1894 (La. 6/1/18), 243 So. 3d 1064 ; State v. Ward , supra . To convict a defendant based upon circumstantial evidence, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded. La. R.S. 15:438 ; State v. Johnston , 53,981 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/...
To continue reading
Request your trial