State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 28 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–KA–25.,12–KA–25. |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Demetrius T. TAYLOR. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Paul D. Connick, Jr., District Attorney, Terry M. Boudreaux, Juliet Clark, Assistant District Attorneys, Gretna, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee.
Margaret S. Sollars, Attorney at Law, Louisiana Appellate Project, Thibodaux, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.
Panel composed of Judges MARION F. EDWARDS, CLARENCE E. McMANUS, and WALTER J. ROTHSCHILD.
[5 Cir. 2]Defendant, Demetrius T. Taylor, appeals his conviction of possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. For the reasons which follow, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.
On July 23, 2008, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of information charging the defendant, Demetrius T. Taylor, with possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony, in violation of LSA–R.S. 14:95.1. A sanity motion was filed, and defendant was ruled competent to stand trial on October 1, 2008. Subsequent to finding defendant competent, defendant was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. Several pre-trial motions, including a motion to suppress evidence and statement, were filed by defendant and denied on April 27, 2009, by the trial court.
On October 15, 2009, trial of this matter commenced. During the trial, and outside the presence of the jury, the defendant moved for a mistrial on the grounds that defendant was incompetent to stand trial. The trial court granted defendant's motion for mistrial, at which time defense counsel waived any potential double jeopardy issues. Thereafter, a competency hearing was held on January 27, 2010, [5 Cir. 3]and after examination of the expert report, the trial court found defendant incompetent.
Several months later, on April 28, 2010, defendant's competency was re-evaluated and defendant was found competent to stand trial. On August 12, 2010, defendant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of “not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.” On the morning of trial, defendant withdrew his not guilty by reason of insanity plea. The matter proceeded to trial before a 12–person jury on June 21, 2011.
Sergeant Kevin Cannatella, of the Louisiana State Police, testified that on June 28, 2008, he received information that a vehicle was traveling the wrong way down Interstate 10 (“I–10”). Pursuant to this information, Cannatella testified that he identified the vehicle and conducted a traffic stop. Because the vehicles were facing each other when the stop was conducted, Cannatella testified that he observed the defendant lean forward and move something on the floorboard in front of him. The defendant was ordered to exit his vehicle and was approached by Cannatella who asked him for identification. The defendant informed Cannatella that his state identification card was inside the vehicle. Cannatella testified that he accompanied the defendant back to his vehicle to retrieve the identification and upon opening the driver's side door, Cannatella observed, on the floorboard in plain view, a chrome revolver. At that point other police troopers had arrived on the scene, so Cannatella escorted the defendant to the troopers who ordered defendant to place his hands on the hood of the car while Cannatella secured the weapon. Cannatella further testified that the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights, but could not specifically recall which officer had Mirandized the defendant. Cannatella testified that the rights would have been read from a card used by the State Police. Cannatella also testified that the defendant understood [5 Cir. 4]his rights and indicated that he was willing to speak with the officers. The defendant then told the officers that he knew the gun was inside his vehicle and that the gun belonged to a family member. However, defendant could not provide the name of the family member who owned the gun. The defendant's identification card was also retrieved from the vehicle and a criminal background check was performed. Pursuant to the background check, Cannatella testified that the defendant was placed under arrest.
Trooper Justin Berry, also of the Louisiana State Police, testified that when he arrived on the scene, there were three other officers present and that the defendant was standing outside of his vehicle with his hands on the hood of his car. Berry further testified that while Cannatella secured the gun, he asked the defendant about the gun. The defendant advised Berry that it belonged to his cousin but was unable to provide his cousin's name. Berry also testified that he did not read the defendant his Miranda rights, and did not indicate in his report that the defendant's rights had been read. According to Berry, he was under the impression that the defendant's rights had been read prior to his arrival.
After considering the evidence presented, the jury found defendant guilty as charged. On August 29, 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant to ten years imprisonment, with credit for time served. The trial court also ordered defendant's sentence to run concurrently “with any other sentence and with any parole revocation.” On the same date, defendant filed a motion for appeal which was granted by the trial court on August 30, 2011.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his statement was made pursuant to a custodial interrogation and prior to receiving his Miranda rights. Defendant further [5 Cir. 5]contends that the evidence acquired as a result of the illegality, namely, the gun, should have also been suppressed. Specifically, defendant asserts that when he was handcuffed and questioned about the gun, an illegal warrantless arrest and search occurred. And because the illegal procedure tainted the physical evidence that was gathered, as well as the statement obtained, defendant argues that his motion to suppress should have been granted.
In response, the State first submits that the gun, recovered from the driver's side floorboard, was seized after it was observed in plain view and prior to the defendant's statement. Thus, the State maintains that the gun was not obtained as a result of any alleged illegality which had yet to occur. Second, the State argues that defendant's statement was made after he was advised of his Miranda rights by one of the troopers on the scene, as testified to by Cannatella. Additionally, the State contends that Trooper Berry testified that the defendant provided the subject statement prior to being placed under arrest and while the troopers were still investigating a potential traffic stop. Thus, because the defendant was not “in custody” at the time the statement was made, the State argues that Miranda was not implicated.
At the motion to suppress hearing, Sergeant Cannatella's testimony differed from his testimony at trial with respect to the timeline of events in this case. At the suppression hearing, Cannatella testified that on June 28, 2008, he received a call that a green SUV was traveling the wrong way down I–10. Cannatella observed the vehicle described, activated his overhead lights, and conducted a traffic stop. Upon conducting the stop, the driver was asked to exit the vehicle at which time Cannatella observed him leaning over, appearing to place something underneath his seat. Once the driver had exited the vehicle, Cannatella approached him and asked him to identify himself, however, the defendant was unable to provide [5 Cir. 6]identification. The defendant advised Cannatella that the vehicle did not belong to him, and made several attempts to return to his vehicle but Cannatella prohibited him from doing so until a safety check was performed. Upon opening the driver's side door, Cannatella observed part of a chrome revolver on the floorboard. Cannatella took control of the revolver at which time a second trooper arrived on the scene. Cannatella instructed the trooper to place defendant in handcuffs for safety because of the weapon recovered. Cannatella further testified that he heard Trooper Flynn read defendant his Miranda rights. Cannatella testified that they ran the serial number on the revolver and discovered that it had been “taken in an armed robbery and reported stolen out of Texas.” Cannatella testified that upon learning this information, the investigation changed from one for safety to placing defendant under arrest for possession of a stolen weapon, for which defendant was re-Mirandized. Cannatella then testified that after being Mirandized for a second time, he heard the defendant state that he knew the weapon was in the vehicle, and that the weapon belonged to his cousin.
At the conclusion of the hearing, and after argument of defense counsel that the defendant's statement should be suppressed because the State failed to produce the trooper who read defendant his Miranda rights, the trial court held the matter open so Trooper Flynn could testify.
Many months later, and after submitting post-hearing memoranda, on April 27, 2009, defendant moved the trial court to render a ruling on his motion to suppress. Thus, at the second hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, the State argued that upon conducting a safety check of the defendant's vehicle, a gun was recovered in plain view and that the defendant told the officers that he knew the gun, which belonged to his cousin, was in the car. However, because the State did not present the testimony of the officer who read defendant his Miranda rights, the [5 Cir. 7]State argued that the question before the court was whether the defendant's statement should be suppressed absent Miranda warnings. The State further argued that Cannatella's question to the defendant in which he asked him “what's this,” was not an interrogation within the purview of Miranda. The State further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wiltz
... ... Finally, the state notes that no motion to continue was filed because defense counsels knew what was on the recording from their access to open file discovery. This court has addressed a late discovery and Brady claim as follows: Page 56 In State v ... Taylor , 12-25, pp. 18-20 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/12), 97 So.3d 522, 535-36, the fifth circuit discussed alleged exculpatory evidence not disclosed as follows: In Brady v ... Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that the suppression ... ...
-
State v. Lacon
... ... Finally, the state notes that no motion to continue was filed because defense counsels knew what was on the recording from their access to open file discovery. This court has addressed a late discovery and Brady claim as follows: In State v ... Taylor , 12-25, pp. 18-20 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/12), 97 So.3d 522, 535-36, the fifth circuit discussed alleged exculpatory evidence not disclosed as follows: In Brady v ... Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that the suppression ... ...
-
State v. Shupp
... ... For these reasons, Defendant asserts that the trial court should have suppressed the reports and that because the trial court failed to do so, he did not receive a fair trial. In State v. Taylor, 1225, pp. 1820 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/12), 97 So.3d 522, 53536, the fifth circuit discussed alleged exculpatory evidence not disclosed as follows: In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 119697, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that the suppression by the ... ...
-
State v. Otkins-Victor, 15–KA–340.
...5 Cir. 10/30/12), 103 So.3d 608, writ denied, 12–2478 (La.4/19/13), 111 So.3d 1030 ; State v. Taylor, 12–25 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/12), 97 So.3d 522, 538 ; State v. Jacobs, 07–887 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/24/11), 67 So.3d 535, writ denied, 11–1753 (La.2/10/12), 80 So.3d 468, cert. denied, ––– U.S. –......