State Of Louisiana VS Columbus Christopher Williams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 KA 1383 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS COLUMBUS CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS DATE OF JUDGMENT December 21 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 376 584 PARISH OF TERREBONNE STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLERANDALLL BETHANCOUR Joseph L Waitz Ellen D Doskey Jr District Asst Attorney District AttOlney JUDGE Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee State of Louisiana Houma Louisiana Frank Sloan Counsel for Defendant Appellant Mandeville Louisiana Columbus Williams BEFORE Disposition Christopher PARRa KUHN AND DOWNING JJ CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED KUHN J Defendant Columbus information with a Defendant waived his guilty was obscenity Christopher Williams found Defendant guilty charged as violation of La R S right He to was appeals designating now a was 14 106 A jury trial and following sentenced to of not bench trial he a fifteen months assignments two pled He l of bill charged by hard labor at We affirm the error conviction and sentence FACTS Defendant was including battery in the Terrebonne Parish being held on a correctional officer 27 September levels of inmates and escorted eat Deputy became very Leon down his 2 was 7 11 03 is coin 2 Brown Defendant was one hand and penis came through grabbed and shook his groin out of his boxer Sh011s repeated these convicted on was not being going to began arguing with Defendant at Deputy Defendant area pulled with the other Defendant told Deputy penis Defendant pulled his pants back actions November 6 2001 on the criminal See State v damage to a coin operated Williams 2003 0814 La App 868 So 2d 48 pane windows where the inmates gather for Blood is drawn and medication is administered through a hatch hole a narrow a secure medical attention the window l blood sugar checking pod device operated step away from the hatch hole This court reversed that conviction charge pod was the Bravo his medication suck his dick while he shook his The defendant The on a Because defendant said he Leon observed defendant up and moments later 1st Cir Leon Jr Leon told defendant to Defendant s device medication give defendant pants with Leon to I out EMT an to charges inhabited an upset stepped away from the hatch hole and began cursing Deputy hand passing by Deputy Wilton Brown did not Brown Elizabeth Brown 2001 for various unauthorized entry of dwelling harassing phone calls and criminal damage On jail opening through which enclosed area with large inmates extend their hands 2 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 1 In his first to him applied offensive is he Defendant suggests that his from the other inmates while rude contends that the susceptible and vague to that not offensive in the as term than more mocking gestures were statute obscenity argues that the Specifically unconstitutional unconstitutionally IS interpretation laughter assigmnent of elTor defendant one provoked meaning of the criminal statute Defendant has raised the time on on the to Louisiana Holmes State Supreme an Court has attack is 2001 0955 However in the and the particular discoverable inspection was 3 App not is not Such of of dominance and directed at a female unconstitutionally vague was to an it comi below before us At issue in this 19 be objection The 841 objection the statute So 2d 955 not and in those State v See 957 attacked the facial as it applies is not without C Cr P mi 920 constitutionality of La R S objection this motion by v writ denied was 99 0806 meant assignment phrase as an La or insult 7 2 99 is patently or a mock that it would have been if a of enor ccordingly it is sense to Mr Williams in this or Hennis 98 0664 p 5 is whether the where the exposure not offensive in the sexual to him error proceedings under La See State case case applied an alleged constitutional appellate review 734 So 2d 16 was 811 pleadings Defendant concludes in this as 02 Since the issue of the properly offensive includes the facts of this display 3 subject defendant states for necessity 15 2 that La C Cr P mi defendant has case raised in the trial error requires for consideration per curiam inspection mere error Instead he attacks the statute statute 1st Cir 2 19 99 In his brief alleged constitutionality of La 1992 instant matter facts of this the with the 14 106 for the first RS OCCUlTence 1st Cir App 536 596 So 2d at 536 assignment of La the facial La of the evidence Hoofkin 14 106 by of its dispensed on 3 p constitutionality of the See at the time Hoofkin 596 So 2d v an Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure irregularity where cases in order to preserve appeal Generally appeal the made of La constitutionality case See also Holmes 2001 0955 at p 3 811 So 2d at 957 747 So 2d 16 Moreover the defendant if even we were penal a Const mi I SS constitutionality So 2d 115 App 2 of the 1st Cir 554 So 2d 1281 559 So 2d 1362 The was actions of cursing at La U S So 2d 1151 v accused an and capable of discerning XIV 1086 has 1 1985 La 1987 The Walters 440 1289 90 La 1985 writ granted La been State La 1 S its consistently v 459 So 2d 1285 463 So 2d 599 600 would find pmiicularity Const amend La Jacobson 1st Cir 1989 App are 14 1 06 A of La R S State 1983 we on Odom State v other grounds La 1990 offensive IS not because persons of regulated by federal constitutional 4th Cir 1984 intelligence Powell 515 So 2d 1085 468 writ denied 1287 term unconstitutional conduct La 1984 v provisions Ludwig v 121 22 error against him requires of the accusation their conduct thereto 13 State See State upheld cause of reasonable men COnf01111ing and of The constitutional guarantee that and nature assignment describe unlawful conduct with sufficient statute clarity that ordinary meaning review the contention baseless s shall be informed of the that to so to as ordinary intelligence the statute requirements indefinite La RS See State writ denied 462 So 2d 206 v 14 106 render the could determine what complies with Davis 457 So 2d 91 La 1985 statute 93 state La and App We find that the defendant s pulling down his pants and grabbing and shaking his penis while Deputy offensive Leon easily fall within the ambit of patently offensive no less behavior This assignment of enol is without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 2 In his second allowing right to assignment him to waive his trial by jury was right not of enol defendant urges that the trial comi erred in to trial by jury Specifically he contends that his knowingly and intelligently waived 4 it remains the Although defendant of his is not practice a 2665 p 1 right to trial by jury 842 So 2d 321 is knowingly and intelligently made 486 La waiver is like While the trial 1983 State colloquy So 2d 72 and knowing v in open that defendant to a The relevant Defense must 2001 1138 La 11 22 02 pretrial colloquy had not This own had the 2001 1138 at p App the day prior previous trial best of luck 8 waiver on to this was a as with App require s jury trial Boykin a 814 1st Cir 3 28 02 829 So 2d 1037 counsel informed the trial as comi follows and the record that he was bench trial defendant we re waiving jury juries see trial wherein defendant to forego a jury without merit 5 v a jury right to trial for was found trial because he We find the trial comi also State 950 So 2d 37 40 41 assignment of enor is was on knowingly and intelligently made 814 So 2d at 78 4th Cir 1 10 07 This is words suggest defendant chose accepted defendant s La 436 So 2d 475 Juries haven t been the best of luck Yes sir In fact As his waiver which is in the record indicates that defendant did not understand the another crime guilty Pierre 2002 v trial comi then confirmed the waiver jury trial The Defendant stated in open court and jury trial waiver such Okay The Court a La 8 p a Chris is that correct Mr Williams Nothing Kahey Your counsel Honor Mr Williams is present waive the jury in this matter today The Comi trial v a a determine if the defendant to the stmi of trial defense waiving was with defendant going prior case State Only that determination does not 78 writ denied 2002 1215 In this obtaining per curiam 322 acceptable judge intelligent Brooks before comi See La C Cr P mi 780 State statutorily required La 3 28 03 for the trial comi to advise prefened method correctly See Brooks Bryant 2006 1154 pp 5 8 DECREE F or these reasons the conviction and sentence Christopher Williams is affirmed CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 6 of defendant Columbus
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.
