State Of Louisiana VS Christopher Sheldon Arnold
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OFLOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 KA 0362 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS CHRISTOPHER SHELDON ARNOLD Judgment Rendered September On Appeal from the Thirty 19 2007 Second Judicial District Court In and For the Parish of Terrebonne State of Louisiana Docket No 415 337 Honorable Timothy C Ellender Honorable Robert 1 Joseph District Waitz Judge Presiding Klees Sentencing Judge Counsel for Appellee State of Louisiana Attorney Juan Pickett Ellen Daigle Doskey Attorneys Assistant District Houma LA Prentice White Baton Rouge LA BEFORE Counsel for Defendant Christopher Appellant Sheldon Arnold GAIDRY McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ McCLENDON J The defendant information robbery with anned defendant pled guilty charged as Christopher Sheldon Arnold imprisonment at suspension of counseled and guilty not a Following The defendant The sentence two pro se charged by bill of violation of LSA R S a 14 64 jury trial the defendant sentenced was labor without benefit hard was defendant assigmnents of of now was found 40 years forty to parole The probation or two appeals designating We affirnl the conviction error and remand FACTS Darryl Price and another perpetrator identified On June 27 2003 trial by robbery Price and other witnesses at the Bank One took over University the defendant committed an armed Branch in Terrebonne Parish They 35 000 from the banle According to the Parker William Smith from CalifOlnia several arriving and Alicia a friend of Parker in Louisiana robbing a picked They Deauville Motel in Thibodaux and formulated meeting cousin from Louisiana they bought a car were In and walkie talkies Price Louisiana A rented a day or so up Tribble and the plan two to rooms preparation for The guns to at the rob the banle Price Tribble Parker Milton Livas and the defendant phones to bank in Louisiana Price and Parker Airport drove Jr In California Price Parker days before the robbery defendant from the New Orleans Present at this Parker testimony of Price and Roger and William Tribble had discussed after as at the Parker s robbery be used were obtained from Tribble and Livas I Also Lee charged in the bill ofinformation were William Henry Smith Darryl Price Milton Livas Gladys Megale Hanis and Roger Parker Jr The only person on trial in the instant matter was the defendant 2 On the lot parking of the day Parker Tribble and Livas the street from the bank third at car Ten to an arranged floor Price female a was car across this pulled the safe out She his gun opened another female point to take red and told an his on the one of the the safe but it contained car The defendant employee put money from According Brian Davis the car window the driver After the s seat the passenger was into going car as a seat running a ditch eyewitness a Price and the defendant ditch he to the saw with ran in accident testified red stuff fly out at opposite trial that He described the person who Mexican guy a white bag prior of the passenger crashed Davis described the person who black guy as a of money Price the defendant had the money with him to an car Several blocks later however he lost control of and crashed into directions the employee approached in the teller the money out get down to dye pack exploded in the pillowcase full Price continued to drive a When the defendant told Price that their time pillowcase a in waiting up Price and the defendant exited the bank and drove away in their Moments later guy friend of Price three different teller spots and had each spot into to newly bought and ordered everyone counter to open At coins went to the a in the Price entered the bank and stood in line holdup jumped the defendant and told him was Harris location was a employees only Gladys sat in the bank parked twenty seconds later the defendant entered the bank pulled announced it gun Price and the defendant robbery got out of got out He further testified that the in his hand and that the other of black man had nothing Moments later Tribble they retmned like area of a to the motel nearby picked up the defendant Unable to room house Price who had removed the 3 outer run to an find Price enclosed shed layer of his clothing and exposed another layer of clothes underneath After hiding for emerged and was apprehended by six police officers He then gave Mirandized Wolfe According same as the to statement recorded a Price his he gave Price at trial Detective Wolfe to while Price was arrested and Detective Malcolm statement to testimony given a was essentially the In his statement Price told Detective Wolfe about all those involved in planning the armed robbery and about the rented motel and the defendant went inside the bank with guns Detective Wolfe anned Price also stated that he rooms was able robbery including apprehend to was arrested about defendant as a Three two out a customer the to defendant and walking covering his testified that robbery pointing a in face with although he family was it looked was Tribble and Parker apprehended Parker identified the a at trial the bank testified at as to Picou one of the he as was to walking in Picou stated that as if the defendant bandanna On asked by a a get back into the bank and get cross police officer was putting try to hat on a examination to the as Picou identify any not Domangue the bank manager testified that the person who gun at Picou had his face Domangue stated that the almost be According suspects shortly after the robbery he could Cmi statement s family the defendant walked in pointed As the defendant was Parker positively identified the defendant of the bank with his the floor Price perpetrator of the anned robbery gun at Picou and told him and his on they could perpetrators of the aimed robbery walking However later in California thirty days eyewitnesses TOllliny Picou on of those involved with the some the defendant Han is drove back to California before Based Hispanic or a cap on and gumnan had Indian On cross 4 a a bandanna light tan examination covering was and described him as Domangue stated that when he gave recorded face s statement to Hispanic was perpetrator perpetrator a the Indian or he did not mention that the police When asked if he could Domangue testified Not with the bandanna see the over his and mouth nose Julie Olin the assistant manager defendant as one According were looking defendant white as positively identified the each other when the defendant entered at pulled his sweatshirt Don t look at my face like real complected She testified that robbery Olin the defendant then to his face and screamed over the ban1e of the perpetrators of the armed she and the defendant the bank at up Olin described the light ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 1 In his first was insufficient assignment of enor support the armed robbery conviction to defendant contends that the of the armed Due Process See U S or not on art 2789 821 sufficiency The Jackson objective circumstantial 2 identity as a cannot stand perpetrator LSA Const art in the light uphold most as it violates I 9 a for beyond reasonable doubt Virginia v 1979 a 443 U S 307 standard of review standard for testing reasonable doubt In his brief the defendant states that there is The conviction to the proved the See LSA C Cr 319 99 S Ct 2781 incorporated the overall evidence When 2 favorable any rational trier of fact could conclude that the state 821 B an his of the evidence to viewing the evidence 61 L Ed 2d 560 is to prove insufficient evidence essential elements of the crime P failed Const amend XIV standard of review for the prosecution state Specifically the robbery A conviction based is whether the defendant argues that the evidence analyzing in Aliicle both direct and circumstantial dispute that arobbery took place at the Bank One that 35 000 was taken during the robbery The defendant maintains however that he was not a party to the robbery or over 5 no evidence LSA R S 15 438 provides that the factfinder overall evidence excludes every reasonable State 141 v Patorno 144 to Hughes by only will one key issue is the defendant perpetrator generally even La 11 29 06 is accomplice an to support with great caution s to qualified merely affect the witness It is When the accomplice such s State v 1051 testify against to credibility s the uncorroborated on by other evidence a co The testify Additionally a testimony of a purported to treat the testimony is language is not testimony mater ally required An testimony is materially corroborated if there is evidence that material s is Positive conviction 943 So 2d 1047 accomplice although the jury should be instructed corroborated a offers him inducements state conviction may be sustained points identity in and some 98 1388 p 13 Castleberry 528 U S state second guess those detenninations not if the inducements would defendant the the as weighs the respective credibilities of the witnesses and In Louisiana confirms identity s committed was witness is sufficient 2005 0992 pp 5 6 accomplice 822 So 2d 1 Cir 6 21 02 App negate any reasonable probability of misidentification the factfinder who court La See hypothesis of innocence rather than whether the crime identification this pp 4 5 Furthermore when the perpetrator required 2001 2585 must be satisfied the 893 120 S Ct an relationship La 99 13 4 s 1035 tale to the and La 1981 confirms situation 758 So 2d 749 145 L Ed 2d 185 220 Schaffner 398 So 2d 1032 accomplice 1999 Hughes 761 State celio quoting Armed belonging to robbery is the State 2005 0992 at p provides taking of anything of another from the person of another 6 or v denied 943 So 2d at 1051 Louisiana Revised Statutes 14 64 A the value that is in the v 6 immediate control of another by use of force while armed with a dangerous weapon Armed robbery is a criminal intent necessary intent crime general to sustain a In 523 524 Parties La 1 Cir App crimes LSA R S fact to 14 23 commission of commit the directly LSA R S or requisite 427 428 Only a per a App ll persons a or concerned in the absent and whether they directly knowingly participate An principals are of Pierre v quoting State state may prove principal guilty are and accessories after the or procure another to commit the crime crime to the crime theory the defendant need found principals as those persons who State curiam The as a 540 So 2d Payne v individual may in the only be principal for those crimes for which he personally has the mental state La 1980 served Principals execution of as State by the very doing constituting the offense aid and abet in its commission act 14 24 convicted classified crime whether present a general intent crimes the writ denied 546 So 2d 169 La 1989 indirectly counselor or planning are intimidation conviction is shown of the acts which have been declared criminal 520 or a robbery not a 93 0893 have State Holmes v defendant by aiding and 2 3 94 388 So 2d 631 So 2d 722 726 guilty by showing that he abetting another Under this actually performed the taking Smith v La 513 So 2d 438 to 444 445 be La 2 Cir 1987 In the case of the defendant at hand several witnesses as one provided positive identification of the perpetrators of the armed testified that when the defendant walked into the bank eye to eye at each other his sweatshirt up court and over robbery we were The defendant then took his gun his face Olin positively testified that when the defendant first 7 Julie Olin out looking and pulled identified the defendant in came in the bank I could ID him exactly because he didn t have to According up a hat on Olin the defendant s face and his face was wasn t covered not covered until he had walked fmiher into the bank Darryl Price who had already pled guilty to Bank One testified that he had were made to not a particular trial Price testified that the first time he the New Orleans the motel was for Price to the bank about the cousin s they and stand in line ten Livas made parked in defendant seconds later and the banle for the money Price in a jumped pillowcase exited the bank and parking the was pulled The defendant out car On the Everybody his gun paced day of and around down it s a began putting and they had Shortly kept Price to leave They Price drove with the defendant seated put his gun inside the pillowcase with the money was plan in the front passenger seat Price put his gun in the back cOUli as went to The lot and went into the bank first counter got in their the passenger side the defendant in when Price robbery announcing the holdup informed about how much time he had left before on was at by the defendant entering afterward the defendant entered the bank and said hold up promises up the defendant from picked plans the if he testified sentence the bank followed at robbery Price drove and the defendant Price no Airport Price Tribble Parker and the defendant where room Parker met the at robbery yet been sentenced and that him that he would get Parker and William Smith the armed the person who came and the defendant seat Price positively identified into the banle with Price and part of the robbery Roger Parker the armed Jr who at the time of the trial robbery testified that the first time he when Parker and Price picked charged with the defendant was was met also the defendant up from the Livas Price Tribble and defendant went to 8 the motel airport room Parker and made plans for the robbery parked across then had saw a On the the of the day robbery the defendant When the saw a robbery phone so that was who driving was driving and the defendant the car that had been follow Price and the defendant but up at a traffic supposed to light turn saw running and picked him see Price the bank and saw s car in a across ditch blew up Unable Tribble of the out the Price and the parking seat Tribble street began momentarily lost them when he was held point where Price The car was empty so to was they They found the defendant was screaming that he could to find Price they not went back to room The defendant contends that the reliable because defendant enter in the passenger parked The defendant up because the money the motel was and drive for Price and the defendant began looking Price a car they could communicate When Tribble reached the they with Tribble in complete Parker was defendant exit the banlc get into their vehicle lot Price sat the bank about twenty seconds later enter phone and the defendant had with each other Parker from the bank street Parker as a as conspirators perpetrator Parker admitted to involved in the to was participants receive leniency from the in the armed or made no state robbery as There is well Price and they as also those nothing in the Parker would receive reduced sentences if they testified against the defendant state identifYing the At trial robbery planning of the armed robbery suggests that Price trial that the of Price and Parker is not their motivation for their roles in the armed named several other record that co testimony In fact promises to Price specifically testified him based on his agreement at to testifY The defendant testimony of Price and Parker insofar was concelned was confirmed 9 as the identity of the by other evidence introduced at trial in example Julie Olin the assistant For of the positive identification court manager at Bank One defendant perpetrators involved in the bank robbery defendant looked face directly a anned to s search slash A Christopher name from Phoenix with the discuss their to Detective LeBlanc pursuant with the met to to New Arizona Christopher Arnold It is clear from the establish the defendant jury rej ected s the defense on In theory The trier of fact is free testimony a of any witness credibility evidence be guilt not its not So 2d 929 v 932 it it and referencing a Southwest phone number to was finding We June 25 on flight ID card luggage tag with it credible and reliable the defendant accept or not subject when there is are to the enough to it is clear the depends s pp 5 6 a upon a of the determination of the detennination of the weight App An s appellate court determination of 1 Cir 9 25 98 constitutionally precluded 10 in part the weight one factfinder La or conflicting testimony appellate review to overturn 97 2261 guilty reject in whole sufficiency The trier of fact Taylor a of misidentification Moreover reweigh the evidence State Among the things found of the witnesses the matter is given evidence is in the participants University of Phoenix about factual matters the resolution of which of the of the search a finding of guilt that the jury concluded that guilt s on Orleans testimony of Price Parker and Olin will covered up his Southwest Airlines ticket stub was a address and s name most plans rn o of Christopher Arnold name two Ten ebonne Parish Sheriffs Office detective search the Deauville Motel where robbery had an She testified that she and the investigated the anned robbery testified that he obtained wanant to of the one at each other before the defendant Also Allen LeBlanc who as made from acting 721 as a thirteenth cases in juror State assessing what weight to give evidence in criminal Mitchell 99 3342 p 8 La 10 17 00 v 772 So 2d 78 83 The defendant also contends that the identification of him photographic lineup reliability of unreliable because it was photographic lineup any was already been apprehended in court identification of the defendant dependent the on that him as albeit a one briefly the photographic lineup Price and Parker s of the perpetrators They could s not was the identify Price and Parker testified they had spent two days with the defendant planning the armed robbery They rode in the motel with him as a they knew The unduly suggestive Moreover prior photographic lineup defendant because a in the instant matter is inelevant When Price and Parker identified the defendant in defendant had through perpetrator with him conversed with him and Furthennore Olin was they transpired based not a on a After a court no stayed at a identification of the defendant eyewitness photographic lineup at the eyewitnesses in s firsthand of Detective LeBlanc testimony of the same car In of the events according to account fact photographic lineup was as the shown to any bank thorough review of the record we find that the evidence negates any reasonable probability of misidentification and supports the jury s verdict We favorable to the are state reasonable doubt and convinced that any rational trier of fact could have found to the innocence that the defendant This assignment viewing the evidence in the light exclusion of every reasonable was most beyond hypothesis a of guilty of armed robbery of enor is without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 2 In his second not given assignment of credit for time served enor the defendant argues that he was He fmiher argues that the trial court failed 11 advise to him of the filing for sentencing transcript indicate that the defendant was two year prescriptive period for postconviction relief The minutes of the given credit for time served that he was See LSA C Cr P Acts No art 880 788 1 S such an court having to As the issue of it is August 15 See State state 727 So 2d 605 filing for mandatory 1997 v rendered the necessity Jarvis or 1997 by giving of fonnality of the 98 0522 6 7 pp La 609 postconviction relief has been raised herein apparent that the defendant has notice of the limitation period and has attOlney who is in the position we filing for on However the amendment of A1iicle 880 effective so 1 Cir 12 28 98 App advised allowance of credit is credit for time served automatic without the trial or relief As to credit for time served La sentencing transcript reflects given credit for time served not postconviction However the actual have done in the past so provide such notice interest of 930 8 A relief judicial which Instead economy considered if it is filed sentence 914 or 922 11 3 06 decline we out of we more 950 So 2d 727 v remand for the trial refer the defendant that n o to LSA C CrP an out of time error appeal judgment provisions of LSA is without merit PRO SE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 12 art shall be of conviction C Cr P Godbolt 2006 0609 pp 7 8 La 732 This assigmnent of court to application for postconviction two years after the has become final under the See State to Although abundance of caution and in the an which seek than him with such notice provide generally provides including applications and to an App arts 1 Cir In his two interrelated pro argues that the trial court imposed to defendants For the assignments of following defendant ordered the timely motion a state to show cause state motion should not be nor his counsel s the trial court Nothing sentence granted in the record indicates the motion and it to defendant was cause the appellate a to reconsider on co merits of these was sentence 20 April On the s ruling 2005 of the day 3 The why the hearing April On motion of the present sentence on the motion responsibility record to be any action procedural posture appeal of the length of the court of the sentences no ordered that the matter be continued without date Although its current and that there is sentence not reach the do we neither the defendant 20 trial reasons the defendant error error Defense counsel filed court excessive an support the great disparity in the justification trial assigmnents of se by reconsider to to obtain a on on with it in supplemented this court ruling the defendant s would be premature At any time the could grant the defendant the relief he seeks on reconsideration of the sentence Therefore matter to we the trial affirm the court for the defendant s motion disposition and 3 resentences The defendant was 4 February court sentenced 4 on but remand the record with the ruling sentence If there has been should rule on If the trial comi the defendant reconsider sentence filed reconsider to opinion conviction supplementation of the of the motion the trial of the date of this defendant s it within grants the motion the defendant may appeal the on no thirty days to reconsider new sentence January 18 2005 The copy of the motion to signed order setting a show cause hearing was which includes the 11 2005 If the defendant is See LSA C CrP art 881 1 A re included pursuant to the sentenced provisions we 1 note that the basis for the sentence should be of LSA CCrP art 894 1 C 13 If the motion is denied move to motion or already has been ruled on the defendant must relodge this appeal within sixty days of the date of the ruling to reconsider See Statev sentence Maloney or the date of this 625 So 2d 748 751 La opinion App the whichever is later 1 Cir 1993 CONVICTION AFFIRMED REMANDED WITH ORDER 14 on
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
