State v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 22 June 2016
• Docket Number: 50,643–KA.
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. Lequarta R. ROBINSON, Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

197 So.3d 717

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee
v.
Lequarta R. ROBINSON, Appellant.

50,643–KA.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

June 22, 2016.

197 So.3d 718

Louisiana Appellate Project by Douglas L. Harville, for Appellant.

James E. Stewart, Sr., District Attorney, Treneisha J. Hill, Sarah M. Hood, Rebecca Edwards, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.

Before MOORE, LOLLEY and GARRETT, JJ.

197 So.3d 719

GARRETT, J.

The defendant, Lequarta R. Robinson, appeals from his conviction for armed robbery with a firearm, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

FACTS

On the evening of December 9, 2014, employees of Johnny's Pizza on Gilbert Avenue in Shreveport were robbed at gunpoint by two masked men. One man was taller than the other. A witness in the parking lot saw the men flee in an SUV and gave the police the license plate number. The vehicle was tracked to a local residence where Robinson was found with Davodrique Abney, Cameron Lee, and Sylbryan Whitehead. A large amount of money was found at the residence, along with a rifle that had been hidden in the attic. The men were arrested. Robinson was charged with one count of armed robbery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:64, together with the firearm enhancement provision of La. R.S. 14:64.3, because a gun was used in the commission of the offense. After waiving his right to a trial by jury, Robinson was tried by the court alone and was found guilty as charged. A motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal, claiming that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson committed the crime for which he was convicted, was denied. Robinson was sentenced to serve 10 years at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Because a firearm was used in the offense, Robinson was also sentenced to an additional five years at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, pursuant to La. R.S. 14:64.3(A).

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Robinson appealed his conviction, claiming there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the armed robbery. Specifically, he argues that he did not commit the crime and the state failed to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification. This argument is without merit.

Legal Principles

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim 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 (1979) ; State v. Tate, 2001–1658 (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. Carter, 42,894 (La.App.2d Cir.1/9/08), 974 So.2d 181, writ denied, 2008–0499 (La.11/14/08), 996 So.2d 1086. 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 fact finder. State v. Pigford, 2005–0477 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517 ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), 1 So.3d 833, writ denied, 2009–0310 (La.11/6/09), 21 So.3d 297. The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence. State v. Smith, 94–3116 (La.10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442. A reviewing court accords great deference to the factfinder's decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part. State v. Eason, 43,788 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/09), 3 So.3d 685, writ denied, 2009–0725 (La.12/11/09), 23 So.3d 913 ; State v. Hill, 42,025 (La.App.2d Cir.5/9/07), 956 So.2d 758, writ denied, 2007–1209 (La.12/14/07), 970 So.2d 529 ; State v. Randle,

197 So.3d 720

49,952 (La.App.2d Cir.6/24/15), 166 So.3d 465.

The Jackson 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 the defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. State v. Sutton, 436 So.2d 471 (La.1983) ; State v. Speed, 43,786 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), 2 So.3d 582, writ denied, 2009–0372 (La.11/6/09), 21 So.3d 299 ; State v. Parker, 42,311 (La.App.2d Cir.8/15/07), 963 So.2d 497, writ denied, 2007–2053 (La.3/7/08), 977 So.2d 896 ; State v. Randle, supra.

Where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, the matter is one of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. State v. Speed, supra ; State v. Allen, 36,180 (La.App.2d Cir.9/18/02), 828 So.2d 622, writs denied, 2002–2595 (La.3/28/03), 840 So.2d 566, 2002–2997 (La.6/27/03), 847 So.2d 1255, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1185, 124 S.Ct. 1404, 158 L.Ed.2d 90 (2004) ; State v. Randle, supra.

In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, one witness's testimony, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion. State v. Gullette, 43,032 (La.App.2d Cir.2/13/08), 975 So.2d 753 ; State v. Burd, 40,480 (La.App.2d Cir.1/27/06), 921 So.2d 219, writ denied, 2006–1083 (La.11/9/06), 941 So.2d 35.

When the key issue is the defendant's identity as the perpetrator, rather than whether the crime was committed, the state is required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification. Positive identification by only one witness is sufficient to support a conviction. It is the factfinder who weighs the respective credibility of the witnesses, and this court will generally not second-guess those determinations. State v. Hughes, 2005–0992 (La.11/29/06), 943 So.2d 1047 ; State v. Clark, 50,137 (La.App.2d Cir.9/30/15), 181 So.3d 150. See also State v. Jackson, 50,400 (La.App.2d Cir.2/24/16), 189 So.3d 1150.

La. R.S. 14:64 provides:

A. Armed robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon.

To convict a defendant of armed robbery, the state is required to prove: (1) a taking (2) of anything of value (3) from the person or in the immediate control of another (4) by the use or force of intimidation (5) while armed with a dangerous weapon. State v. Nealon, 50,089 (La.App. 2d Cir.9/30/15), 179 So.3d 661 ; State v. Jackson, supra. In order to enhance the sentence under La. R.S. 14:64.3, the state is required to prove that the dangerous weapon used in the commission of the robbery was a firearm. State v. Love, 50,238 (La.App.2d Cir.1/13/16), 185 So.3d 136.

All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly counsel

197 So.3d 721

or procure another to commit the crime, are principals. La. R.S. 14:24.

Discussion

At the bench trial held on June 30, 2015, the court heard testimony from numerous witnesses. On the night of the offense, Marryia Jones, an employee of Johnny's, was reading a book in the beer garden and video poker area. Jones heard someone at the outside door, which had a magnetic lock. She thought it was a regular customer, so she went to the door. When she got close to it, the lock released and it was yanked open. Two men entered. One man was taller than the other and was wearing a black mask and a navy jacket. Jones said the taller man was about her height, six feet one inch. The other man was shorter and was wearing a brown jacket with a bandana over his face. According to Jones, the shorter man had a rifle and told her, “Don't move bitch.” The taller man snatched the money.

Cilleria Harris was also working at Johnny's on the night of the robbery. During the robbery, she walked from the restaurant side to the beer garden and saw Jones standing still. She heard someone say “get down.” She said there were two men present. She described one man as taller than the other, about six feet tall. Harris is...