State v. Smith
| Docket Number | 54,510-KA |
| Decision Date | 08 November 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee v. CARLOS M. SMITH Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 354,236 Honorable John D. Mosely, Jr., Judge
CARLOS M. SMITH Pro Se, Appellant
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
REBECCA ARMAND EDWARDS TRENEISHA JACKSON HILL SENAE DENEAL HALL Assistant District Attorneys
Before STONE, STEPHENS, and ELLENDER, JJ.
This criminal appeal arises out of the First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo, State of Louisiana, the Honorable John Mosely, Judge, presiding. A unanimous jury convicted the defendant, Carlos M. Smith, of two counts of attempted second degree murder. He was sentenced to 75 years at hard labor without benefits on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. Smith early on in the process opted (and was allowed by the trial court) to proceed to trial pro se and without the assistance of standby counsel. The instant appeal has been pursued by a pro se Smith who declined the assistance of an appellate project attorney on appeal.
The State of Louisiana filed a bill of information against the defendant, Carlos M. Smith ("Smith"), on January 9 2018, charging him with two counts of attempted second degree murder, violations of La. R.S. 14:27 and 14:30.1, in connection with the shootings of Richard Howard and George Robinson that occurred on or about December 6, 2017, in Shreveport, Louisiana. Smith was also charged with one count of possession of a firearm or carrying of a concealed weapon by a convicted felon, a violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1, on the same date.
On January 9, 2018, the trial court found probable cause for the charges against Smith following a preliminary examination. On that same date, Smith filed a motion to represent himself and the trial court, after a brief colloquy, including an offer to appoint standby counsel (which Smith refused), granted Smith's request. Smith waived arraignment and pled not guilty.
On December 16, 2020, the State filed an amended bill of information dropping the third count (the possession of a weapon by a convicted felon charge) and, after his arraignment on the amended bill, Smith pled not guilty on January 4, 2021.
Jury selection began on April 5, 2021, and a jury was empaneled on April 7, 2021. Trial began on April 13, 2021. The following is a brief summary of the facts.
All of the people involved in this incident grew up together in a small section of Cedar Grove known as Pine Valley. On the evening of the shooting, George "Bug" Robinson had just gotten off work and had walked to his home at 7232 Bethany Drive in Shreveport, Louisiana. George and his wife Zandier lived next door to his parents, whose home was located at 7236 Bethany Drive.
Richard Howard testified that he and George had plans to "bring in the holidays" that night. Richard was homeless at the time and sometimes stayed with George's father, but noted he was not doing so at the time of the shootings. On the night of December 5, Richard and George were outside when Smith walked up. According to Richard, Smith asked George to borrow some money. George went to his dad's house to get some. Richard testified he was standing between George's house and George's father's truck. The only people outside at the time were Richard and Smith. Richard saw Smith walk up behind him. From that point "whoever" shot him eased from behind him, hit him on the head, then shot him.
On cross-examination, Smith spent an inordinate amount of time asking Richard about the community's perception of Smith as a criminal and what Richard had told the investigating officer about Smith. He also asked Richard about an alleged incident in which Smith assaulted one or both of Richard's nieces. On redirect, the prosecutor asked Richard whether he knew that Smith had a conviction for domestic abuse battery. Smith objected, and the trial court sustained his objection.
George testified that he had borrowed money from Carlos Smith a few days previously to buy some "mojo," and he had told Smith to come by his house on payday so he could pay him back. George went to his father's house next door to see if he had any change. As he was walking, George saw Richard Howard and Smith standing by George's father's black truck- Smith was out there waiting for him.
George went out to tell Smith he couldn't get any change. Smith thought he was playing. George gave Richard some crack, then walked back across his yard and stood by the edge of the street. He saw Richard and Smith talking. George testified that he then saw Smith shoot Richard in the head.
Zandier Robinson testified that she had been outside trying to get her husband George back inside the house so he wouldn't blow all of their bill money that night. Before she could get the door closed, she saw Smith walk up behind Richard and shoot him in the head. Zandier was able to describe Smith's clothing from that evening as a black trench coat and black hat. She was emotional during her testimony and related that she has been in counseling since the shootings. Also, she noted that she has relocated following the traumatic events of that night. George and Smith started walking down the street. George related that he was nervous. A man joined them and as he and George were talking, George heard a shot. As he turned around, Smith was "all over [him]." George took off running with Smith chasing him, "steadily shooting." Eventually, George fell and played dead. Smith's gun was a small black revolver, like a six-shot .32 or .38.
George testified that he went to a neighbor's house and got him to call 911, then lay on the ground in his carport until EMTs and police showed up. When he was able to answer questions, he told police that Carlos Smith had shot him. George stated that he also told officers that Smith had shot Richard Howard.[1]
Smith took the stand in his own defense. He related to the jury his theory of the case that he was the victim of a conspiracy, an easy scapegoat because he supposedly had his grandmother identify one of "their" friends as a suspect in a crime, which allegedly caused him to be labelled a snitch in "their" neighborhood. Smith also related that he was the victim of several previous crimes which he contended the police did not take seriously or properly investigate that were related to the shootings of December 6, 2017.
A 12-person jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts on the two counts of attempted second degree murder. Smith filed motions for postverdict judgment of acquittal and new trial, both of which were denied by the trial court.
On May 12, 2021, the State filed a multiple offender bill charging Smith as a second felony offender. In the bill, Smith's first felony offense was alleged to be an aggravated battery charge that he pled guilty to on November 9, 2005, and was sentenced to a six-year hard labor sentence. The habitual offender bill alleged that the second felony offense is that which Smith was convicted of on April 13, 2021.[2] Smith continued to represent himself, and, based upon his prior representation, the trial court allowed him to do so.
Smith entered a plea of not guilty to the multiple offender bill. On May 25, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Smith's motions for postverdict judgment of acquittal and new trial; both motions were denied the day of the hearing. At that time, Smith filed a motion to quash the habitual offender bill. A hearing on the multiple offender bill was held on June 3, 2021. After the hearing, the trial court denied Smith's motion to quash the multi bill and adjudicated him a second felony offender.
Smith was sentenced on June 16, 2021. Consecutive sentences of 75 years at hard labor without benefits were imposed on each count. Smith filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the multiple offender adjudication and sentencing on July 18, 2021. This motion was denied by the trial court. Smith filed the instant appeal, as well as a plethora of motions once his appeal was lodged.
Defendant has filed no appellate brief. Instead, Smith has filed a "Writ of Deceit," with several supplemental filings in support (all of which total approximately 300 pages). Smith refused to file a brief because he claims that the record lodged by the trial court on December 9, 2021, is "adulterated" and "interpolated" to make it appear that he fumbled his own jury trial. Specifically that "interpolaters" compromised his questions and arguments, which were "majorly prewritten and eloquently designed," by "rearranging and additioning as well as extracting particular statements and objections" in favor of the State. Smith claims fraud on the part of one of the court reporters, the trial judge, and the assistant D.A.
Among the relief sought by Smith in his Writ of Deceit: judicial notice of the contents of his motions for mistrial, post-verdict judgment of acquittal, and new trial; the granting of his Writ of Deceit and a concomitant stay of his conviction and sentence with a release on his own recognizance until his exoneration or new trial which is warranted under "Estoppel by Record."
After receiving the State's brief urging this Court to perform only a review of the record for errors patent, Smith was motivated to file a supplement to his Writ of Deceit. Therein, he contends that the appellate record is "an infection to the truth" that, as constituted, deprives him of his right to a complete record. According to Smith the false demonstration (the appellate record) impedes him from correctly filing his brief because the record as lodged...
To continue reading
Request your trial