State Of Louisiana VS Trenton K. Dubois

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 KA 0558 STATE OF LOUISIANA VS TRENTON K DUBOIS JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 19 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DOCKET NUMBER 19495 DIVISION C PARISH OF ASCENSION STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE GUY HOLDRIDGE JUDGE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE ANTHONYFALTERMAN STATE OF LOUISIANA DISTRICT ATTORNEY DONALD CANDELL ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY GONZALES LA ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT TRENTON K DUBOIS KATHERINE FRANKS ABITA SPRINGS LA GAIDRY MCDONALD AND MCCLENDON n BEFORE fV V J j NLj CPr7 MCDONALD J The defendant Trenton K Dubois information with schedule II controlled La R S 40 967 A one R S 40 968 A RS 40 969 A dangerous substance He suppress any and all evidence and search Thereafter to right State was all v and seizure he withdrew his fonner 338 So 2d 584 Crosby sentenced sentences designating to all run s a violation of La violations of XI He moved to all counts interrogation was denied pleas and pleaded guilty reserving his ruling La on 1976 the motion Pursuant to one concurrently with assignments of a hearing the motion a each count to six and on two on court violations of the result of unconstitutional Following seek review of the sentences as on distribute intent to distribute counts IX guilty bill of with intent to distribute possession not pleaded to VII count VIII dangerous substances 1 intent counts I possession with and three counts of 1 schedule IV controlled La of count charged by amended possession with dangerous substances 1 schedule III controlled of counts seven was a plea bargain he half years at hard labor with each other We affirm error See to suppress He now appeals the convictions and counts ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 1 when The cause warrant issued in subsequent presented acquired to the circumstances to suppress a 5 they invented The evidence based upon a illegal intrusion that lacked probable misrepresentations of fact that as S home and arrested him based upon denying the motion that contained information s they created and exigent judge erred cause violated the Fourth Amendment and La Const art I they entered the defendant probable trial police result of the in bad faith 2 illegal was based in part upon intrusion and that was The trial judge erred in 2 failed The State the defendant not suppressing the statements establish that the to given by statements were knowing and voluntary and attenuated from the forced police entry into his home and his illegal arrest FACTS On June 2 Lake Charles Valium pills Casey Charles 2005 As area pills backpack She indicated she was defendant when she had the car delivering pills to were aware Charles body defendant and s the home the and as for a had been complete an her house knocked Listening to the audio steroids and Clenbuterol in delivering the pills to a the She also indicated she had been As while seven or eight a result of a narcotics years earlier the a police relationship recording transmitting device placed delivery on to the defendant on went to the She the door and the defendant allowed her into conversation between Charles and the defendant the defendant expressed apparent surprise he stated that he wanted to get to see Charles of the narcotics trade and out dlUgS had ruined his life and caused him to break li girl iend Both Charles and the defendant began crying present began comforting each other defendant would discover the audio body and knocked carrying drug activity together became emotional because up with his accident the defendant agreed to have police heard Thereafter accident in the that Charles and the defendant had been involved in and had been involved in her well as in the process of the defendant investigation concerning a car Charles the road on 12 000 Valium approximately involved in result of the accident between 5 000 and 10 000 a scattered were was on the door The police became concerned that the recording transmitting device to the 3 defendant s home on Charles and entered s Once inside the police secured the defendant Charles and another man discovered in a bedroom Louisiana State Police Miranda Trooper Jeff Holley advised the defendant of his rights and the defendant indicated that he understood those rights Trooper Holley asked the defendant if he would residence sign a The defendant gave search fonn consent to a little tentative After a the telephoned and decided search police Over 400 Valium pills 63 units of defendant s of was car warrant was as a search signed by Somas and they was Trooper Holley and Clenbuterol were The defendant admitted that he looked searched the home 413 Valium 6 400 in cash were 286 units of pills recovered from the a Pontiac Sunfire at That vehicle contained 235 units driving milligram Dilaudid 25 units of codeine milligram Dilaudid judge a steroids Approximately 95 units of four Meprobamate asked him to obtain to Oxycontin the police search of the felt that the defendant well as bedroom closet the residence and the the defendant s home and recovered from the home Xanax consent a Trooper Holley warrant at verbal a consent to 91 units of 40 units of Ritalin 71 eight units of Dextrostat 9 units of morphine 1200 units of Soma 238 units of Straterra 31 units of Provigil and 7 vials of Serastem The defendant told and the car were his dlUgS recovered from his closet defendant advised was which he sold was that he had been boyfriend worked addicted to at in the home He also indicated that the money money he had received fi Trooper Holley Charles and that her indicated he Trooper Holley that the drugs recovered a medical selling dlUgS The receiving pills fi om om center The defendant Valium and Charles knew that if she started bringing him Valium he would have to 4 sell them because he would use some of them The defendant also admitted that he had been while and now Within was the execution of the search on the The defendant claimed he did not know Charles day money for a the warrant Trooper Holley that Charles and her boyfriend had previously gone to his residence and stolen narcotics he intended to sell money that really getting tired days following defendant told doing of the search and had not well as coming was to her since spoken as drug to him the narcotics and stolen were MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE In probable sent assigmnent cause of error number 1 believe that the residence contained to into the house with the other than those created by warrant because the the police whom the trial judge cannot of the 1 court ant was we note the officers Additionally insufficient possessed a deal the defendant failed warrant made or sought The defendant references the court went into the defendant s home for to was be availed of after verdict unless was exigent circumstances misrepresentations made recognized affidavit in support of the search error themselves to he argues the support issuance and omissions and before their entry into a first time infonnant leniency raise in the trial insufficient An at was no dlugS other than those no the uncorroborated word of Charles was Initially wan because it contained only infonnation that the residence and police infonnant affidavit in support of the search of the the defendant argues there the time the the party made known court that the irregularity ruling to the or or order comi the response to defense argument that because Charles ofher own right or free will the police were under no s protect her The court responded No I don t think Charles went in of obligation her own free will I m sure she went in on a deal with the State Police to lessen the to penalty that she was going to receive 5 action which he desired the court to take the and comi warrant It is a basic seizures inside tenns that was a challenge s principle to a warrant 82 63 L 2d Ed 639 Probable the action of P Crim 841 ati the affidavit in support of the are presumptively seizures of propeliy and a finn line exigent circumstances that threshold v Code to of the U S Fomih Amendment that searches and home without apply equally Payton to objections preserved for appeal not F omih Amendment has drawn warrant La grounds therefor the defendant Accordingly search the of his or at the may not to unreasonable In seizures of persons the entrance to the house Absent reasonably be erased without New York 445 U S 573 586 90 100 S Ct 1371 a 1380 1980 cause to arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the arresting officer s knowledge and of which he has reasonable and trustwOlihy information are sufficient to justify a man the person to be arrested has committed mere suspicion cannot proof to convict justify State writ denied 449 2d So Farber 446 So 2d 1376 important elements police committed When only have determine whether there is justify to a man of been committed know that a an offense not 1379 in determining know a Although need sufficient La 1st Cir App caution in In many When the cases atTest or whether crime has crime has been committed and the ordinary committed the crime committing the officer does an an est existed is satisfied when the a is 1356 La 1984 One of the most cause v or of average caution in the belief that the been police know it they the person police do not to more to be atTested has know that search is made when the 6 actually reasonably trustworthy information believing crime has been committed probable a crime has police do not and better evidence is needed to prove that know a probable crime has been committed Probable cause alone does Louisiana Constitution protected than is the arrest when the case police Farber 446 So 2d at 1379 not justify the entry into otherwise an area the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and protected by A1iicle I if there is area Exigent circumstances with exists for the cause probable cause probable are justify S There is 5 cause to arrest a justified and entry into a protected exceptional circumstances would be unlawful a exigent circumstances which when exceptional circumstances an intrusion of area coupled that without those of such Examples exigent circumstances include escape of the defendant avoidance of a possible violent confrontation that could public and the whether oral to inculpatory statements or entry into the defendant code home s a The State fuliher to suppress any physical interrogation and search the motion to suppress the defense and the defendant had the officers and the the defense moved case result of unconstitutional on injury Farber 446 So 2d at 1380 destruction of evidence In the instant cause argued The State argued there evidence obtained and seizure there was responded history together they and all evidence At the nothing to as the hearing justify the that because Charles may have been speaking in possibility that the drugs could the trial court noted that the police was a have been flushed down the toilet In denying the motion entry into the home of was being exposed and might have device taken and an justified because the infonnant seemed the police against her if he There police entered to suppress was no s the verge did not know what actions the defendant discovered the audio Payton violation in this the defendant on residence exigent circumstance The police 7 there was were aware recording transmitting case At the time the probable cause to arrest of the commission of the offense of possession with intent to distribute the the Lake Charles Charles area the defendant in the offense to deliver the dlUgS Charles told the the defendant The to that Charles and the defendant had been involved in previously defendant status as into close came an s This that offense police that previously been in contact exigent circumstance in this status as an assignment scene in directly implicated she her way was on police had independent knowledge drug activity together body the crash at relationship and had a Thereafter that threatened to case to she and the compromise infonnant if the defendant discovered the device not create the for Charles to principal a dlugs The the contrary her police did they intended informant to remain hidden from the defendant of enor is without merit MOTION TO SUPPRESS CONFESSIONIINCULPATORY STATEMENTS In his second assignment of before being advised Holley testified he obtained defendant s state of his Miranda a search The moments rights he had been crying Trooper warrant because of mind would have been that Trooper Holley agreed the defendant consent the defendant argues that error was not and to good in his defendant argues the State failed sufficiently from the intlusion he did not give think that the right mind to subsequent custody and consent to give show he recovered give to be able to a legally voluntary statement It is well settled that for admissible into evidence and a the State confession must or inculpatory affinnatively statement to be show that it was voluntarily given without influence of fear duress intimidation threats inducements must show custodial that an or La La R S accused who makes intenogation 99 1112 p 5 promises App was a 15 451 Additionally statement frrst advised of his Miranda 1st Cir 2 18 00 8 752 So 2d 337 or menaces the State confession rights 342 State freely v during Plain The admissibility of for the trial its conclusions comi testimony relating confession is in the first instance a the to voluntary on the nature analyzed of each Whether on a case not or by case The trial case in deciding whether 6 a are question weight of the confession great weight and will not be overturned unless they evidence and credibility a are of the accorded the supported by not showing of voluntariness has been made is to the facts and circumstances basis with comi must regard consider the totality of the circumstances 752 So 2d at 342 There motion was no to suppress or not a confession is admissible the confessioninculpatory Trooper Holley decided search obtain defendant before that the defendant statement rights to was a incapable up with his walTant searching of testimony of challenged Trooper Holley rather than giving statements a s or that relying on home does not free and voluntary the defendant his Miranda the defendant indicated he understood those the girlfriend the defendant Trooper Holley testified he read thereafter made The fact that the statements breaking mean 99 1112 at p abuse of discretion in the trial comi s denial of the defendant may have been upset about consent from the Plain rights The trial credible and there is no and the defendant court basis found the to oveliurn that determination This assignment of enor is without merit CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED 9 ON ALL COUNTS

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.