State Of Louisiana VS Wallace R. James
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 KA 2327 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS WALLACE R JAMES Judgment Rendered MAY 72010 On Appeal from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Iberville State of Louisiana Docket No 1242 08 Honorable Alvin Batiste Judge Presiding Richard Ward Counsel for Appellee District Attorney Dana Larpenteur Timothy Collins State of Louisiana Assistant District Attorneys Plaquemine Louisiana Prentice White Counsel for Defendant Appellant Louisiana Appellate Project Baton Rouge Louisiana Wallace R James BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ MCCLENDON 3 The defendant Wallace R James was charged by bill of information with first degree robbery a violation of LSAR 14 S 64 1 He pled not guilty Following a trial by jury the defendant was convicted of the responsive offense of simple robbery a violation of LSAR 14 S 65 See LSA C P Cr art 1 23 A 814 The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for five years to run concurrently with any sentence he was currently serving The defendant now appeals urging in a single counseled assignment of error that the evidence presented by the state is insufficient to support the conviction He has also filed a pro se supplemental brief alleging prosecutorial misconduct For the following reasons we affirm the defendant conviction and s sentence FACTS James Washington a law enforcement officer employed by the Iberville Parish Sheriff Office was working patrol on August 14 2008 when he was s dispatched to investigate an alleged armed robbery at a trailer on Choctaw Road in Iberville Parish Upon arrival Officer Washington spoke to Angie Hebert who advised that she had just been robbed at gunpoint Angie explained that her friend Gloria Anderson visited her residence earlier that day and that Gloria was accompanied by another individual Angie advised that approximately one hour after leaving the residence with Anderson the individual who had accompanied Anderson returned to the residence He had a brown paper bag over his hand and had shaped it into the form of a handgun He demanded money and threatened to shoot the house up if Angie did not give him money The perpetrator took approximately 80 to 100 and two cellular telephones 00 00 from Angie before leaving the residence Angie stated the perpetrator was wearing a black and white polostriped shirt a black baseball cap and dark blue jeans According to Angie Hebert one of the cellular phones was valued at approximately 200 and the other was worth approximately 50 00 2 In response to this information Officer Washington contacted Gloria Anderson confirmed that she had been to Angie Hebert residence s Anderson earlier that day and advised that the individual in question was her nephew the defendant Captain Blair Favaron Chief Detective for the Iberville Parish Sheriff s Office initiated a criminal investigation of the robbery He compiled a photographic lineup of potential suspects and presented it to Angie for identification Angie unequivocally identified the defendant as the individual who robbed her SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In his sole counseled assignment of error the defendant contends the evidence presented by the state in this case is insufficient to support the jury s verdict Specifically he argues that Angie and Craig Hebert the state key s witnesses had been engaged in illegal drug use shortly before the alleged robbery and thus their trial testimony regarding what allegedly transpired at the residence should not have been deemed credible He argues that their testimony was insufficient to meet the state burden of proving his guilt beyond s a reasonable doubt In response the state asserts there was ample evidence presented at the defendant strial to support the simple burglary conviction The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution a rational trier of fact could conclude the state proved the essential elements of the crime and the defendant sidentity as the perpetrator of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt See LSAC art 821 State v P Cr Johnson 461 So 673 674 La App 1st Cir 1984 A reviewing court must 2d consider the evidence to determine whether or not it meets the constitutional standards of Jackson v Virginia 443 U 307 99 S 2781 61 L 560 S Ct 2d Ed 1979 which has been incorporated in LSAC art 821 State v McLean P Cr 525 So 1251 1255 La 1 Cir writ denied 532 So 130 La 1988 2d App 2d Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 821 is an objective standard for 3 testing the overall evidence both direct and circumstantial for reasonable doubt When analyzing circumstantial evidence Louisiana Revised Statutes 15 438 provides the factfinder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence McClean 525 So at 1255 State v 2d Nevers 621 So 1108 1116 La App 1 Cir writ denied 617 So 906 La 2d 2d 1993 Ultimately all evidence both direct and circumstantial must be sufficient under Jackson to satisfy a rational juror that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt State v Shanks 971885 pp 3 4 La 1 Cir 6 App 98 29 715 So 157 159 2d This standard of review in particular the requirement that the evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution obliges the reviewing court to defer to the actual trier of fact rational credibility calls evidence weighing s and inference drawing See State v Mussall 523 So 1305 1308 11 La 2d 1988 Thus the reviewing court is not permitted to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence See State v Burge 515 So 494 505 La 1 Cir 1987 writ 2d App denied 532 So 112 La 1988 2d The defendant was convicted of simple robbery Simple robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another by use of force or intimidation but not armed with a dangerous weapon LSAR 14 S 65 A At the trial Gloria Anderson testified on behalf of the state She identified the defendant in open court as her nephew She further testified that on the date in question the defendant accompanied her to the Hebert residence She explained that Craig Hebert Angie Hebert exhusband owed her some money s and she went to collect On cross examination Anderson admitted that she took Lortab She also admitted that during the visit in question Craig and Angie Hebert asked her to give them one of her Lortab pills and she complied Angie Hebert testified that on the date in question Craig Hebert her ex husband was present at her residence because he was doing some flooring work 0 for her According to Angie Anderson arrived at her residence accompanied by the defendant She introduced the defendant as her nephew Angie had never met the defendant prior to this visit Angie testified the monetary exchange took place after Anderson asked to borrow ten dollars for gas She denied that Craig owed Anderson money Approximately one hour later the defendant returned to the residence forced his way in after she opened the door and demanded money Angie testified that the defendant hand was covered with a brown bag but he held s his arm toward her in a manner that led her to believe he was armed with a handgun Angie denied ever seeing a gun but she explained that she feared for her life and the lives of her children because the defendant threatened to shoot if she did not comply with his demand for money She stated that Craig advised her to just give him the money On cross examination Angie denied receiving any Lortab from Anderson or using any Lortab on the date in question She also denied ever asking the defendant to purchase crack cocaine for her Angie testified she never voluntarily gave any money to the defendant Craig Hebert also testified as a state witness Craig testified that he was s previously married to Angie Hebert At the time of the incident in question he was unemployed and staying at Angie for a few days and he had agreed to s install flooring for Angie He further testified that Gloria Anderson was a friend of his and that she visited him at Angie residence on the date in question to s collect money he owed her Like Angie Craig testified that the defendant accompanied Anderson on this visit Shortly thereafter the defendant returned to the residence and robbed them Craig testified that since the defendant did not actually brandish a weapon he was not convinced that the defendant was really armed with one However since he was unsure and because he feared for the safety of his children Craig instructed Angie to comply with the defendant s demands The defendant took approximately 80 100 from the Heberts 00 00 5 before leaving the premises On cross examination Craig denied getting any illegal drugs from Anderson on the day in question On appeal the thrust of the defendant sufficiency argument appears to s be that the jury should not have believed Angie and Craig Hebert account of s what transpired at Angie Hebert residence He claims both witnesses lacked s credibility due to an existing drug relationship with him and Gloria Anderson Initially we note that it is the function of the jury to determine which witnesses are credible It is obvious from the verdict rendered that the jury in this case found Angie and Craig Hebert credible and accepted their accounts of the events The jury chose to believe the clear and certain testimony of Angie and Craig Hebert that the defendant returned to the residence pretended to be armed with a weapon and demanded money Despite the defendant s unsubstantiated claims of illegal drug activity between him and the victims as suggested through defense questioning the jury apparently rejected the claim that the incident was a drug deal gone awry On appeal this court will not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence to overturn a jury determination of guilt State v Williams 02 s 0065 pp 67 La 1 Cir 6 822 So 764 768 writ denied 03 0926 App 02 21 2d La 4 870 So 263 With the evidence presented the state proved at 04 8 2d a minimum that the defendant took cash and two cellular phones from Craig and Angie Hebert by use of force or intimidation i threatening to physically e harm them if they failed to comply with his demands Viewing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution we find it to be sufficient to convince any rational trier of fact that all the elements of the crime of simple robbery and the defendant identity as the s perpetrator were proven beyond a reasonable doubt Contrary to the s defendant claims on appeal there was ample evidence to support defendant s simple robbery conviction See State v Moten 510 So 55 61 La 1 2d App Cir writ denied 514 So 126 La 1987 This assignment of error is without 2d merit PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT In his supplemental pro se brief the defendant argues that a grave miscarriage of justice occurred in this case because Dana Larpenteur the Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted the case was also the victim in an unrelated simple burglary charge pending against the defendant The defendant argues that Larpenteur failure to recuse himself from the prosecution s of this matter constitutes prosecutorial misconduct and warrants reversal of the conviction However based on the record presently before us we are unable to reach the defendant prosecutorial misconduct claim the record being devoid of any s evidence testimonial or documentary to support the defendant assertions s regarding the unrelated case The only evidence of the existence of charges relating to the burglary of the Law Office of Dana Larpenteur is presented in an attachment to the defendant spro se brief This Court as an appellate court rather than a court of original jurisdiction is limited in its review to matters contained in the appellate record We have no authority to receive or review evidence not contained in the trial court record State v Smith 447 So 2d 565 569 La 1 Cir 1984 See also State v Oubichon 422 So 1140 App 2d 1141 La 1982 Therefore we cannot review whether the assistant district attorney should have recused himself in this case See LSAC art 681 P Cr Rather this issue would be more properly raised by an application for post conviction relief filed in the district court where a full evidentiary hearing may be conducted See State v Sylvas 558 So 1192 1203 La App 1st Cir 1990 2d Accordingly this pro se assignment of error is not subject to appellate review For the foregoing reasons the defendant sconviction and sentence are affirmed CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 2 In the earlier portion of his brief the defendant states that Mr Larpenteur was the victim in this case However the attachment provided with the brief and the argument contained therein reflect that the prosecution for the simple burglary of the Law Office of Dana Larpenteur is unrelated to the instant case 7
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.
