State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 05 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 53,934-KA,53,934-KA |
| Citation | 321 So.3d 486 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. Emilio TAYLOR, Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, By: Peggy J. Sullivan, Monroe, Counsel for Appellant
JAMES E. STEWART, SR., District Attorney, REBECCA ARMAND EDWARDS, WILLIAM C. GASKINS, Assistant District Attorneys Counsel for Appellee
Before GARRETT, COX, and BLEICH (Pro Tempore), JJ.
This criminal appeal arises from the First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Following a unanimous jury verdict, defendant, Emilio Taylor, ("Taylor") was convicted of armed robbery (count one) in violation of La. R.S. 14:64 with the additional enhancement penalty for use of a firearm (count two) in violation of La. R.S. 14:64.3. Thereafter, Taylor was adjudicated a second felony offender and sentenced to 35 years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence imposed on count one, to be served consecutively with a five-year sentence, without benefits, for count two.
On appeal, Taylor presents four assignments of error: first, Taylor challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to support his conviction; second, Taylor argues that he was not advised of his right to a 15-day delay period pursuant to La. R.S. 15:529.1, and is entitled to have this matter remanded; next, he asserts that the transcript of the guilty plea used to adjudicate him as a second felony offender revealed that he was not advised of his right to a trial by jury; finally, Taylor argues that the imposition of his sentence is unconstitutionally harsh and excessive such that the trial court erred in denying his motion to reconsider the sentence.
For the following reasons, we affirm Taylor's conviction, vacate the multiple offender adjudication, and remand this matter for further proceedings.
On May 24, 2018, as Family Dollar employees, Destini Hall ("Hall") and Clark Remedies ("Remedies") were closing the store, a man wearing sunglasses, a hat, and a bandana over his face, entered the store. After Remedies exited the restroom near the rear of the store, the man held Remedies at gun point and forced him back toward the front of the store, where he demanded that Hall empty the contents of the register into a pink bag. Next, the man ordered Remedies to open the safe, and after Remedies refused, he struck Remedies on the head with the gun. Once the safe was opened and its contents placed into the pink bag, the man forced Hall and Remedies to the back of the store, where he then exited through a back door.
Remedies identified the man who robbed the store as Taylor to responding officers. On May 31, an arrest and search warrant were executed at Taylor's home. Officers arrested Taylor, and during the search of his home, recovered approximately $1,595 dollars in cash and a nine-millimeter handgun. On January 23, 2019, by amended bill of information, Taylor was charged with one count of armed robbery with the additional penalty of use of a firearm. On February 11, 2020, a jury trial commenced. In addition to video surveillance of the robbery captured by store security cameras, the following testimony was provided at trial.
First, Hall testified that on May 24, 2018, she worked the closing shift at the Family Dollar on Lakeshore Drive when the store was robbed. Hall stated that a few minutes after she started counting the money in her register, she heard talking and then saw a man walking toward the front of the store holding a gun to Remedies’ head. The man approached Hall, told her he didn't want to hurt anyone, gave her a pink bag, and ordered her to put the money from the register into the bag. Hall then testified that the man ordered Remedies to open the safe. After Remedies stated that he couldn't, the man repeatedly hit Remedies on the head with the gun until Remedies eventually opened the safe, and Hall was then told to place the money from the safe into the pink bag. Hall then testified that she could see some of the details of the weapon that the man used. In particular, she noted that the man used a semi-automatic gun and that the handle of the gun appeared as though it had "a brown trim on the handle." Hall then reviewed the surveillance footage of the robbery and confirmed that the events of the day in question were accurately reflected in the video and consistent with her testimony.
Next, during Remedies’ examination, he reviewed the surveillance footage and confirmed that the events of the robbery were accurately reflected in the video. In particular, Remedies testified that after he emerged from the restroom in the back of the store, he was confronted by a man in shades, a hat, and a bandana over his face. He stated that the man forced him to the front of the store and hit him over the head with a gun after he initially refused to open the store safe upon demand. Remedies stated that he immediately told responding officers that the man who robbed the store was Taylor. Although Hall testified that she had neither seen nor worked with Taylor before, Remedies testified that he was able to positively identify the perpetrator as Taylor because he used to work with Taylor.
Specifically, Remedies stated that he was able to recognize Taylor by his voice and build. Remedies testified that two days prior to the robbery, Taylor texted him, wondering if he was at work. Remedies testified that Taylor called and asked if he would help rob the store, to which he declined and asked Taylor not to rob the store. After the call, Remedies stated that he reported this information to the store's district manager.
Corporal Robert Cerami ( ) of the Shreveport Police Department ("SPD") testified that in May 2018, he assisted in the execution of the search warrant for Taylor's residence. As a result of the search, he testified that cash and a handgun located within a dresser were recovered. On cross-examination, Cpl. Cerami testified that although the handgun and cash were recovered from the search of the home, no pink bag, hat, or bandana was ever discovered.
Following Cpl. Cerami's testimony, Detective Richard Turpen ("Det. Turpen") of the SPD, who also participated in the arrest and search of Taylor's home, testified that Taylor was found hiding in the attic of his home, and after Taylor's oral and written consent was obtained, a handgun and cash were recovered.1 Det. Turpen also reviewed the surveillance footage and testified that during the robbery, the perpetrator's hat fell off and revealed that the man's hair was styled into what was described as "puffs" or "pom-poms." To this, outside the presence of the jury, it was noted that during Det. Turpen's investigation, Taylor made a phone call to his girlfriend in jail on May 26, 2018. During the monitored call, Taylor's girlfriend asked if he wanted her to do his hair when she got out of jail, to which Taylor responded that he had already had his hair done.2 Within the presence of the jury, Det. Turpen stated that on the date of Taylor's arrest, his hair was styled into longer thinner dreads, and that he monitored the jail conversation between Taylor and his girlfriend and confirmed that the two discussed Taylor's hair.
At the close of testimony, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict and Taylor was convicted as charged. The trial court denied Taylor's motion for a new trial and post-verdict judgment of acquittal. On March 11, 2020, the State of Louisiana ("the State") tendered a sentencing offer of 25 years at hard labor without benefits for the armed robbery charge, with a consecutive 35-year sentence for the enhanced firearm penalty. In exchange, the State offered to dismiss a pending charge for attempted murder and would forgo filing a habitual offender bill. On June 25, 2020, Taylor rejected the State's offer, the State filed a second felony habitual offender bill, and the habitual offender hearing commenced that day. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court sentenced Taylor to thirty-five years at hard labor, without benefits, with a five-year sentence for the enhanced firearm penalty. This appealed followed.
In Taylor's first assignment of error, he asserts that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial for the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the offense in question. In particular, Taylor notes first that although Remedies claimed to have recognized the man who robbed the store as Taylor by his voice and build, the description provided by both Remedies and Hall, as well as the video footage itself, was simply of a man wearing a hat, shades, and a bandana covering his face.
Taylor argues that the hairstyle of the man seen in the video was styled into "puffs" or "pom-poms," and Taylor's own hair, at the time of the arrest, as corroborated by Det. Turpen, was styled into longer dreads. The State argued at trial that a phone call between Taylor and his girlfriend, in which she asked if Taylor wanted her to do his hair, explained the difference in hairstyles of Taylor at the time of the arrest as opposed to the man in the video. To this, Taylor argues that throughout the duration of the phone call, no corroborating evidence was discussed to confirm that Taylor ever changed the style of his hair after the robbery occurred. Specifically, Taylor notes that during the conversation with his girlfriend: 1) the pair never discussed a robbery at any point; 2) Taylor never stated what he would possibly want her to do to his hair; 3) there was no mention of Taylor getting any sort of extensions placed in his hair to give him longer dreads; and 4) Taylor never stated when he got his hair done, only that he had already gotten it done so there was no need for his girlfriend to do it.
In addition to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his style of hair in connection with the robbery, Taylor contends that the testimony of Remedies was also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Myrick
... ... Based on the following reasons, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORYOn September 2, 2020, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Cpl. Shelia Taylor ("Cpl. 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 ... ...
-
State v. Smith
...status is established by competent evidence offered by the State at a hearing rather than by admission of the defendant. State v. Taylor, 53,934, p. 18, 321 So.3d at 496. State filed a bill charging Smith as a second felony offender on May 12, 2021. Therein, Smith's first felony offense was......
-
State v. Hawthorne
...the Jackson standard requires that the prosecution negate any reasonable probability of misidentification. State v. Taylor , 53,934 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/5/21), 321 So. 3d 486 ; State v. Green , 38,335 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/12/04), 873 So. 2d 889, writ denied , 04-1795 (La. 11/24/04), 888 So. 2d ......
-
Aycock v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Bossier Levee Dist.
... ... Instead, it adopted the gradation between damaging (less severe) and taking (more severe) recognized in Avenal v. State , 03-3521 (La. 10/19/04), 886 So. 2d 1085, 34 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,122, cert. denied , 544 U.S. 1049, 125 S. Ct. 2305, 161 L.Ed.2d 1090 (2005), and ... , as it uses the words "prescribed" and "prescription," and courts always interpret dubious statutes to maintain rather than bar actions, Taylor v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. , 579 So. 2d 443 (La. 1991).The City responds that the two-year period of R.S. 9:5624 is, in fact, peremptive, based on ... ...