State v. Tyler

Decision Date02 May 2012
Docket NumberNo. 11–1256.,11–1256.
PartiesSTATE of Louisiana v. Letrakus TYLER a/k/a Trey Tyler.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Michael Harson, District Attorney, Fifteenth Judicial District, James Nathan Prather, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Lafayette, LA, for Appellee, State of Louisiana.

Annette Fuller Roach, Louisiana Appellate Project, Lake Charles, LA, for Defendant/Appellant, Letrakus Tyler a/k/a Trey Tyler.

Court composed of JAMES T. GENOVESE, SHANNON J. GREMILLION, and PHYLLIS M. KEATY, Judges.

GENOVESE, Judge.

[3 Cir. 1]In this criminal case, Defendant, Letrakus Tyler, a/k/a Trey Tyler, appeals his convictions of aggravated rape, attempted first degree murder, and aggravated burglary. He assigns as error insufficient evidence to support his conviction of attempted first degree murder, trial court error in allowing him to waive his right to a jury trial, and double jeopardy when he was convicted of both aggravated burglary and aggravated rape. For the following reasons, we affirm Defendant's convictions in their entirety and instruct the trial court to inform Defendant of his post-conviction relief rights.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 8, 2009, Defendant entered the home of D.C.,1 a ten-year-old girl, through her bedroom window and raped her. During the act of rape, Defendant held his hand over D.C.'s mouth, held her neck, tried to smother her with his shirt, threatened to kill her, and struck her several times on the back. Defendant was the ex-boyfriend of D.C.'s mother, and a protective order was in effect at the time of the offenses.

Defendant was charged on May 13, 2009, by grand jury indictment with aggravated rape, a violation of La.R.S. 14:42; attempted first degree murder, a violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and La.R.S. 14:30; and, aggravated burglary, a violation of La.R.S. 14:60. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty to all charges on June 23, 2009.

Defendant waived his right to trial by jury, and a bench trial commenced on April 13, 2011. The trial court subsequently found Defendant guilty of aggravated rape, attempted first degree murder, and aggravated burglary. On April 21, 2011, [3 Cir. 2]Defendant was sentenced as follows. On his conviction for aggravated rape, he was sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence; on his conviction for attempted first degree murder, he was sentenced to fifty years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence; and, on his conviction for aggravated burglary, he was sentenced to thirty years at hard labor. The trial court ordered that these sentences be served concurrently.

Defendant has appealed, asserting three assignments of error. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of attempted first degree murder, that the trial court erred in not assuring he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial, and that he was subjected to double jeopardy when he was convicted of both aggravated burglary and aggravated rape.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we note one error patent.

The record does not indicate that the trial court advised Defendant of the prescriptive period for filing post-conviction relief as required by La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8. Therefore, we instruct the trial court to inform Defendant of the provisions of La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8 by sending appropriate written notice to Defendant within thirty days of the rendition of this opinion and to file written proof of same in the record of these proceedings. State v. Roe, 05–116 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/05), 903 So.2d 1265,writ denied,05–1762 (La.2/10/06), 924 So.2d 163.

[3 Cir. 3]ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

In his first assignment of error, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove all of the elements of attempted first degree murder.

When a sufficiency of the evidence claim is raised on appeal, the standard of review 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. State v. Macon, 06–481 (La.6/1/07), 957 So.2d 1280 (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)).

State v. Jasper, 11–488, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/11), 75 So.3d 984, 987.

Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree murder.

First degree murder is the “killing of a human being when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon a victim under the age of twelve years.” La. R.S. 14:30(A)(5).... Attempt is defined as “Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended.” La. R.S. 14:27(A).

The crime of attempted murder, whether first or second degree, requires proof of the specific intent to kill and the commission of an overt act tending toward the accomplishment of that goal. State v. Cepriano, 00–213 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/29/00), 767 So.2d 893, 897. Specific intent is “that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act.” La. R.S. 14:10(1). Because specific intent is a state of mind, it need not be proven as a fact, but may be inferred from the circumstances and actions of the accused. State v. Lewis, 97–160 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/29/97), 698 So.2d 456, 459,writ denied,97–2381 (La.3/27/98), 716 So.2d 881.

State v. Alsay, 11–562, pp. 7–8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/13/11), 81 So.3d 145, 149.

D.C. testified that she was ten years old when Defendant raped her. When interviewed, D.C. told the interviewer that Defendant raped her. She explained that rape meant he put his private in her and touched her where she did not want to be touched. D.C. said that Defendant entered her room through a window while [3 Cir. 4]she was sleeping and got on top of her back and said, “Don't scream, or I'll kill you.” Defendant then pulled down her pants. D.C. started crying, and he put his hand over her mouth. She then said that Defendant put his “private in my behind, and his finger, and he started to put his private in my private. And I kept trying to get him to stop, and he slapped me on my back, every time I didn't open my legs.” After Defendant concluded these heinous acts, he told D.C. to get him back together with her mother. D.C. further stated:

Whenever he had put me on the floor, and started to try and smother me with um ... his shirt, or I think a pillow, I'm not sure about that one[,] but he tried to smother me on the floor. And[,] ... he tried to put his private in me then. And then after that, he put me on the bunk bed, where the wood's at [sic] and he pushed me against it[;] then[,] he put his butt in my private, every time he would like, feel me screaming, or trying to scream, he would put his private deeper in my butt.

When asked about Defendant's attempts to smother her, D.C. stated, He tried to push it down on my face, but he couldn't because ... well, he did, but ... I had my face like that, and he didn't notice.” D.C. then stated she had her face turned sideways. D.C. again stated that Defendant slapped her on the back every time she would not open her legs, and then he would put his private in her private.

Dr. Christopher Lawrence, an emergency room physician, testified that D.C. was brought by ambulance to the emergency room on March 8, 2009. Dr. Lawrence stated that D.C. told him that Defendant said, “Don't scream or I'll kill you.” D.C. also stated that Defendant restrained her by holding her mouth with his hand and holding her neck and that he slapped her on the back.

Dr. Lawrence further testified that D.C. had swelling to her right lip, abrasions to the lips, abrasions to the right cheek, and scratches and bruising on both sides of the neck. Dr. Lawrence also testified that the abrasions had to be [3 Cir. 5]caused by a fairly rigid or semi-sharp object and that they could have been caused by “hands, any kind of choking maneuver with fingernails.”

Nancy Mire, a registered nurse, testified that D.C. stated the following when asked what occurred:

He came in through my window. He laid on top of my back and said, “Don't scream or I'll kill you.” He pulled my pants down and started to put his private part in my butt. He started to put his finger in the bottom.... He put his private part in my private. He kissed me and put his tongue in my mouth.... He put [me] on my knees against the wall—against the wood of [the] bunk bed and started to put his private part into my bottom. He put me on the floor and tried to smother me with his T-shirt. He started to talk to me, told me he was sorry and help me get—get me and your mom back together and tell your brother to help me and your mom get back together. He stated your mother does not tell you the truth about how your dad died. Patient states he had his hand over her mouth the whole time. He wiped the window sill with his shirt and put the screen back on the window.

Trinh Landry, a DNA analyst, testified that Defendant's DNA was found on vaginal and rectal swabs taken from D.C.

In support of his argument that the State failed to prove he had the specific intent to kill D.C., Defendant cites numerous cases involving dangerous weapons and vehicles. He then asserts that the testimony he told D.C. to help him reunite with her mother is inconsistent with a finding that he had the specific intent to kill D.C. Defendant further asserts there was no evidence that he attempted to deprive D.C. of oxygen and suffocate her. He contends that the acts of putting a hand and shirt over D.C.'s mouth were consistent with attempting to prevent her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Doc v. Cain, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-cv-0824 SECTION P
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • June 17, 2016
    ...On May 2, 2012, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed petitioner's convictions and sentences. State v. Tyler, 93 So.3d 670, 2011-1256 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2012). The Louisiana Supreme Court denied petitioner's request for discretionary review on February 8, 2013. State v. Tyler......
  • State v. Craig
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • October 9, 2013
  • State v. Craig
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • October 9, 2013
  • State v. Bethley
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • February 6, 2013
    ...11–562, p. 8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/13/11), 81 So.3d 145, 149,writ denied,12–1041 (La.9/21/12), 98 So.3d 335;see also State v. Tyler, 11–1256 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/2/12), 93 So.3d 670. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the State adequately proved that Defendant po......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT