State Of Louisiana VS Darnell Jones
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 KA 2261 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DARNELL JONES Judgment Rendered May 7 2010 APPEALED FROM THE TWENTY THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ASCENSION STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 20794 DIVISION E THE HONORABLE ALVIN TURNER JR JUDGE EMMMEMM3 Donald D Candell Attorneys for Appellee Assistant District Attorney State of Louisiana Gonzales Louisiana and Ricky L Babin District Attorney Donaldsonville Louisiana Mary E Roper Attorney for Defendant Appellant Louisiana Appellate Project Darnell Jones Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE PARRO KUHN AND MCDONALD JJ McDONALD I The defendant Darnell Jones was charged by separate bills of information with armed robbery use of a firearm additional penalty a violation of La R S 3 64 14 docket no 20794 and aggravated burglary a violation of La R 14 S 60 docket no 20795 The defendant pled not guilty to the charges Subsequently the State amended the bill of information by removing the La R 14 charge S 64 3 armed robbery use of a firearm additional penalty and charging the defendant with only armed robbery a violation of La R 14 S 64 The defendant was rearraigned on the amended charge of armed robbery and pled not guilty Following a jury trial the defendant was found guilty as charged of armed robbery For the aggravated burglary charge he was found guilty of the responsive offense of attempted aggravated burglary a violation of La R 14 and 14 For the S 27 60 armed robbery conviction the defendant was sentenced to fifteen years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence The trial court also sentenced the defendant to five years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence for the offense of armed robbery use of a firearm additional penalty This five year sentence was ordered to run consecutively to the fifteenyear armed robbery sentence For the attempted aggravated burglary conviction the defendant was sentenced to five years at hard labor with the sentence to run concurrently with the armed robbery sentence The defendant now appeals designating four assignments of error affirm the armed robbery conviction and fifteenyear sentence We We vacate the additional fiveyear sentence under La R 14 for use of a firearm during S 64 3 commission of an armed robbery We reverse the attempted aggravated burglary conviction and vacate the attempted aggravated burglary sentence We remand for a retrial on the aggravated burglary charge The matters were consolidated for trial 2 FACTS On August 23 2006 at about 2 a Eureka Asberry was sleeping with 00 m her two young sons in her bedroom in her trailer on Oak Street Donaldsonville in Ascension Parish s Eureka friend Saterius Jenkins was sleeping in another bedroom in the trailer into the trailer The defendant Robert Henry and Nathan Wooden broke The loud noise of the breakin awoke Eureka awakened by Eureka yelling his name Saterius was The defendant and another assailant walked toward the back bedroom where Eureka and her children were Eureka picked up her phone and dialed 911 but was unable to speak because one of the assailants sprayed mace or pepper spray in her face She dropped the phone on the ground Since the 911 connection had already been made the events that transpired in Eureka bedroom were recorded at the 911 communication center s Eureka testified at trial According to her testimony the defendant put a gun to her head and demanded to know where the dope was The gun the defendant used was later identified as an SKS assault rifle with a magazine containing nine live rounds Eureka denied having any drugs When the defendant insisted she tell him where she had the drugs Eureka told the defendant the drugs were in the second dresser drawer in a blue bag It is not clear from Eureka testimony if the s defendant actually found drugs in the drawer The defendant then took 140 from s Eureka purse jerked her out of the bed and made her crawl down the hallway s Eureka four yearold son clung to her while she crawled When she got to the end of the hallway she saw the third intruder in the kitchen The defendant again asked Eureka where the drugs were located Eureka said they were in the cabinet The defendant told the man in the kitchen to search the cabinets He did and found nothing Shortly thereafter the police arrived outside Eureka trailer s The three intruders remained inside and ran to the back of the trailer while Eureka ran 3 outside with her four yearold son Several police officers surrounded the trailer and minutes later the defendant and Henry exited the front door to surrender Later Saterius exited the trailer Because a suspect and Eureka nine yearold son s remained inside the trailer crisis response teams were assembled and entered the trailer sson was found in her bedroom unharmed Nathan Wooden was Eureka found hiding under the sofa Police officers searched Eureka trailer and found s 3 2 ounces of powdered cocaine and 1 ounces of crack cocaine in the back of the 9 sofa Eureka testified that the drugs belonged to a friend ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 In his first assignment of error the defendant argues the attempted aggravated burglary verdict was improper because it did not comply with La P Cr C art 782 Specifically the defendant contends that only nine jurors voted guilty Accordingly it was reversible error for the trial court to accept the vote Under La C art 782 cases in which punishment is necessarily P Cr A confinement at hard labor shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors ten of whom must concur to render a verdict See La Const art I A 17 Whoever commits the crime of aggravated burglary shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than one nor more than thirty years La R 14 A person who commits S 60 attempted aggravated burglary shall be imprisoned in the same manner as for the offense attempted See La R 14 Accordingly a conviction in this S 27 3 D case required at least ten jurors to vote guilty of attempted aggravated burglary When the trial court was informed the jury had reached its verdicts the trial court stated Hand the paper to the bailiff and I look at it to make sure that it ll s in proper order The trial court then found the verdicts to be in proper order and had the clerk read aloud the verdicts The jury found the defendant guilty of armed robbery and attempted aggravated burglary 0 One of the defense counselors requested that the jury be polled Thereafter an oral polling was conducted by the clerk The clerk asked each juror to confirm his or her verdicts for both charges At the conclusion ofthe polling the trial court asked Did I get this as being 11 to one The clerk responded 10 to 2 The results of the polling in fact indicated that eleven jurors found the defendant guilty of armed robbery and one juror found him not guilty Ten jurors found the defendant guilty of attempted aggravated burglary and two jurors found him not guilty Notably juror Ms Moses voted guilty for both charges Because of the apparent confusion the trial court stated Let sjust make sure we have it correctly The trial court instructed the clerk to poll the jury again and the state did not object to the second polling However this time as informed by the trial court the clerk asked each juror to confirm his or her verdict regarding only the armed robbery charge Following this the clerk then asked each juror to confine his or her verdict regarding only the attempted aggravated burglary charge The record indicates that at this point there seemed to have been a consensus among counsel clerk and court that there were sufficient guilty votes to confirm both convictions without discussing the results of the second polling because the trial court simply thanked the jurors and discussed unrelated matters with them The minutes apparently discuss only the second polling and indicate the verdict was 10 to 2 on both charges Our review of the results of the second polling indicates that ten jurors found the defendant guilty of armed robbery and two jurors found him not guilty However only nine jurors found the defendant guilty of attempted aggravated burglary and three jurors found him not guilty Notably juror Ms Moses changed both of her guilty votes to not guilty votes 2 The court shall order the clerk to poll the jury if requested by the state or the defendant It shall be within the discretion of the court whether such poll shall be conducted orally or in writing La Cart 812 P Cr 5 The defendant argument that the attempted aggravated burglary guilty s verdict was improper because it did not comply with La C art 782 thus has P Cr merit In the absence of a concurrence of ten of the twelve jurors there was no legal verdict rendered either of conviction or of acquittal State v Cook 396 2d So 1258 1261 La 1981 In its brief the State concedes that no legal verdict was rendered The State after careful review of both the trial transcript and trial audio tape agrees with defendant that the jury failed to find him guilty of attempted aggravated burglary by the statutorily required 10 2 guilty vote Rather both the trial transcript and trial audio tape indicate that during the second polling of defendant charge on s attempted aggravated burglary Juror Moses changed her verdict from the first polling and voted not guilty as to that charge As such the s jury verdict was only 93 for guilty of attempted aggravated burglary Based thereon the State agrees that defendant conviction s for attempted aggravated burglary is null and void Accordingly this assignment of error has merit The defendant conviction s for attempted aggravated burglary is reversed and that sentence is vacated The aggravated battery charge is remanded to the district court for retrial See Cook 396 So at 1261 2d ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 2 In his second assignment of error the defendant argues he was convicted of armed robbery by a 102 non unanimous verdict in violation of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions Specifically the defendant contends that La C P Cr art 782 violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial since it must be A considered in light of the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law Whoever commits the crime of armed robbery shall be imprisoned at hard labor La R 14 Louisiana Constitution article I S 64 B A 17 and Louisiana P Cr C art 782 provide that in cases where punishment is necessarily at hard A labor the case shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors ten of whom must concur to render a verdict Under both state and federal jurisprudence a T criminal conviction by a less than unanimous jury does not violate a defendant s right to trial by jury specified by the Sixth Amendment and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment See Apodaca v Oregon 406 U 404 92 S Ct S 1628 32 L 184 1972 State v Belgard 410 So 720 726 La 2d Ed 2d 1982 State v Shanks 97 1885 pp 15 16 La App 1st Cir 6 715 So 98 29 2d 157 16465 The defendant suggests that Ring v Arizona 536 U 584 122 S 2428 S Ct 153 L 556 2002 Apprendi v New Jersey 530 U 466 120 S 2348 2d Ed S Ct 147 L 435 2000 and Jones v United States 526 U 227 119 S 2d Ed S Ct 1215 143 L 311 1999 which emphasize the necessity of a unanimous 2d Ed verdict implicitly overrule the prior anomalous holding in Apodaca and must be taken account of by this Court This argument has been repeatedly rejected by this court and our supreme court Our supreme court has recently affirmed the constitutionality of Article 782 See State v Bertrand 2008 2215 La 3 09 17 6 So 738 3d The Bertrand court specifically found that a non unanimous 12 person jury verdict is constitutional and that Article 782 does not violate the Fifth Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments Bertrand 20082215 at p 8 6 So at 743 3d This assignment of error is without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 3 In his third assignment of error the defendant argues the trial court erred in sentencing him for the conviction of aggravated burglary Specifically the defendant contends he should have been sentenced for the responsive offense of attempted aggravated burglary Further the defendant reiterates his position that the guilty verdict for attempted aggravated burglary was infirm Because the defendant conviction for attempted aggravated burglary is s reversed the sentencing issue is moot The trial court sentenced the defendant to five years at hard labor for the attempted aggravated burglary conviction 7 Since this conviction is reversed the five year sentence is vacated In its brief the State agrees that defendant sentencing for said null and void conviction must be s vacated Accordingly the defendant sentence for the reversed attempted aggravated s burglary conviction is vacated As noted above the matter is remanded for retrial on the aggravated burglary charge ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 4 In his fourth assignment of error the defendant argues the trial court erred in imposing the additional penalty to his armed robbery sentence for the use of a firearm Specifically the defendant contends the sentencing enhancement under La R 14 should not have been considered by the trial court when it S 64 3 sentenced him for the armed robbery conviction This argument has merit The defendant was initially billed for the offense of ARMED ROBBERY ADDITIONAL PENALTY La R 14 docket no 20794 S 64 3 The bill of information makes no mention of La R 14 the armed robbery statute Under S 64 La R 14 S 64 3when the dangerous weapon used in the commission of the crime of armed robbery is a firearm the offender shall be imprisoned for an additional period of five years without benefits Prior to the start of voir dire after a bench conference the trial court stated that the District Attorney sOffice was going to amend the armed robbery with the use of a firearm additional penalty under La R 14 to armed robbery under S 64 3 La R 14 After some discussion about rearraigning the defendant the trial S 64 court stated in the presence of trial counsel and the defendant Based upon the assertion of the Assistant District Attorney Mr Larry Buquoi the State will proceed under 14 armed robbery 64 instead of under 14 therefore defense counsel and the State will 3 64 only voir dire the jury on 14 and on the aggravated burglary charge 64 which is 14 60 There will be no mention of 14 because of the 3 64 District Attorney amending the charge to 14 and the parties have 64 0 agreed as I stated before that the defendant will be rearraigned once the jury selection is completed on the 14 64 Following voir dire the defendant was rearraigned The clerk stated State of Louisiana versus 20 Damell Jones you charged with armed robbery 794 re How do you plead The defendant responded Not guilty Prior to opening statements the clerk read aloud in pertinent part that the defendant under docket no 20794 was charged with armed robbery and that he pled not guilty It is clear from the foregoing that the State specifically removed the additional penalty charge under La R 14 and sought to charge the S 64 3 defendant under an amended bill of information and rearraignment with only armed robbery under La R 14 These actions indicate it was the intent of the S 64 State to no longer seek an enhancement of the armed robbery sentence See State v Robinson 2006 464 pp 3 4 La App 5th Cir 12 947 So 783 784 06 2d 85 In its brief the State agrees the trial court erred in imposing the extra sentence The State after amending the Bill of Information to charge defendant with armed robbery in violation of La R 14 did not file any S 64 written notice to defendant of its intent to seek enhancement of the sentence under La R 14 The imposition of the additional S 64 3 penalty is neither self operative nor imperative absent charging defendant with the use of a firearm or timely moving for enhancement of the sentence As such the imposition of the additional penalty must be vacated The trial court erred in imposing the additional sentence under La R S A 3 64 14 Accordingly the five year sentence at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence is vacated ARMED ROBBERY FIFTEENYEAR AFFIRMED ARMED ROBBERY SENTENCE UNDER LA R 14 AFFIRMED S 64 ADDITIONAL CONVICTION FIVE YEAR SENTENCE UNDER LA S 64 R 14 3 FOR USE OF A FIREARM DURING COMMISSION OF ARMED ROBBERY VACATED ATTEMPTED AGGRAVATED BURGLARY CONVICTION REVERSED ATTEMPTED AGGRAVATED BURGLARY SENTENCE REMANDED FOR RETRIAL ON AGGRAVATED VACATED BURGLARY CHARGE 9
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.
