State Of Louisiana VS Courtney Davis
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 111 1 M p idll IX111191 I STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS COURTNEY DAVIS Judgment Rendered September 10 2010 Appealed from the Twentieth Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Feliciana State of Louisiana Trial Court Number 07CR752 Honorable William G Carmichael Judge Presiding Samuel C D Aquilla Kathryn Jones Counsel for Appellee State of Louisiana Clinton LA Amanda M McClung St Francisville LA Frank Sloan Mandeville LA Counsel for DefendantAppellant Courtney Davis BEFORE WHIPPLE McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ WHIPPLE J The defendant Courtney Davis was charged by grand jury indictment with second degree murder a violation of LSAR 14 S 30 1 He pled not guilty Following a trial by jury the defendant was convicted as charged The defendant moved for a new trial and for post verdict judgment of acquittal However the trial court denied both motions Thereafter the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence The defendant now appeals urging in a single assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his pretrial motion to suppress the statements he made to the police at the time of his arrest and later during custodial interrogation Finding no merit in the assignment of error we affirm the defendant s conviction and sentence FACTS During the early afternoon hours of September 8 2007 Sheila Flowers was inside her residence on Johnson Street in Clinton Louisiana when she heard two gunshots outside When she ran to her kitchen door to try to determine the source of the noise Ms Flowers saw the defendant standing outside with a gun in hand According to Ms Flowers she asked the defendant what he was doing and he responded by firing a third gunshot into the air contacted 911 Ms Flowers immediately Moments later as Ms Flowers exited the front door of her residence she saw the defendant walking down the street with the gun in his hand The defendant stated h deserved it e When law enforcement officials arrived at Ms Flowers residence they s found the lifeless body of the victim Johnny Lee Sanders lying face down on the ground in the backyard Thus officials began a homicide investigation 2 In connection with the investigation Clinton Police Officer Craig Betrece went to the defendant residence and spoke with the defendant sister Officer s s Betrece was personally acquainted with the defendant family The defendant s s sister contacted the defendant on his cellular phone and handed the phone to Offier Betrece Betrece spoke briefly with the defendant but without ever advising him of his rights According to Betrece the defendant stated that he had shot a man who had pulled a knife on him The defendant then terminated the telephone call without providing any additional information Approximately one and onehalf hours after the shooting Lieutenant Troy Abshire of the Clinton Police Department was advised via dispatch that the defendant had been located at a nearby residence Todd Collins had discovered the defendant hiding inside a storage shed at his residence Collins had hit the defendant over the head with a shovel locked him inside the shed and contacted the police Once Lieutenant Abshire arrived at the residence he opened the shed and found the defendant sitting in a chair The defendant was immediately apprehended and orally advised of his Miranda rights Later as he was being placed inside the police vehicle the defendant stated that he was the person who shot the victim The defendant was transported to the East Feliciana Parish Sheriffs Office parish jail where he was again advised of his Miranda rights This time Lieutenant Abshire used a written rights form Lieutenant Abshire signed the form verifying that he had advised the defendant of his rights The defendant also signed the form acknowledging that he had been advised of his rights and that he understood them The defendant did not initial the portion of the form regarding the waiver of his rights Next to item number 3 which provides I am willing to answer questions and make a statement the defendant marked over what appeared to have been his initials 3 Later while still in custody the defendant was questioned by Don McKey and Terrance Miller officers with the East Feliciana Parish Sheriffs Office and Al Burns an officer with the Clinton Police Department The defendant was again advised of his Miranda rights at this time After agreeing to waive his rights and to make a statement the defendant executed another written rights waiver form and then gave an audio recorded confession In the statement the defendant again admitted that he shot the victim but he claimed he did so in self defense after the victim pulled a knife on him Prior to the trial of this matter the defendant moved to suppress all statements After a hearing the court granted the motion to suppress as to the statement made to Officer Betrece over the phone but denied the motion as to the s defendant statements to Lieutenant Abshire and the audiotaped statement during the interrogation at the jail ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress the statement he made to Deputy Abshire while entering the police vehicle and the audio recorded statement made during the custodial interrogation Citing the Florida Supreme Court decision in s Florida v Powell 998 So 2d 531 532 Fla 9 the defendant contends that 08 29 the recitation of the Miranda warnings provided before each of the aforementioned statements was constitutionally deficient Specifically he argues that the oral warnings provided by Lieutenant Abshire failed to specify the right to counsel during any interrogation He further asserts that the adviceofrights form used during the custodial interrogation failed to convey the right to the advice of court appointed counsel before questioning Notably on February 23 2010 shortly before the brief was filed in the instant case the United States Supreme Court reversed the abovecited Florida Supreme Court decision in s Florida v Powell S U L Ed 2d 130 S Ct 1195 4 2010 Louisiana Revised Statute 15 451 provides that before a purported confession can be introduced in evidence it must be affirmatively shown to be free and voluntary and not made under the influence of fear duress intimidation menaces threats inducements or promises Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 703 provides that on the trial of a motion to suppress the burden is on D the defendant to prove the grounds of his motion except that the state shall have the burden of proving the admissibility of a purported confession or statement by the defendant A defendant bears the burden of asserting the basis for his motion to suppress in order to give the State adequate notice so that it may present evidence and address the issue LSAC art 703 State v Jackson 2004 P Cr E 1388 p 5 La App 5th Cir 5 904 So 2d 907 911 writ denied 2005 05 31 1740 La 2 924 So 2d 162 06 10 When a trial court denies a motion to suppress factual and credibility determinations should not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial s court discretion i unless such ruling is not supported by the evidence See e State v Green 94 0887 p 11 La 5 655 So 2d 272 28081 However a 95 22 trial court legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review See State v s Hunt 20091589 p 6 La 12 25 So 3d 746 751 09 1 It is well settled that a defendant is limited on appeal to the grounds he articulated at trial a new basis for the claim even if it would be meritorious cannot be raised for the first time on appeal State v Johnson 389 So 2d 372 377 La 1980 See also State v Peters 546 So 2d 829 831 La App 1st Cir writ denied 552 So 2d 378 La 1989 State v Stewart 465 So 2d 206 20809 La App 3d Cir writ denied 468 So 2d 571 La 1985 and State v Wright 441 So 2d 1301 1303 La App 1st Cir 1983 where the respective courts concluded that the defendants therein forfeited their right to pursue various allegations on appeal by their failure to raise the claims in their pretrial motions to suppress or at the W hearings on the motions Moreover articulating a new basis for the motion to suppress for the first time on appeal is prohibited under the provisions of LSA P Cr C art 841 since the trial court would not be afforded an opportunity to consider the merits of the particular claim See State v Cressy 440 So 2d 141 14243 La 1983 In the instant case the grounds set forth in the defendant written motion to s suppress were general The testimony and argument presented at the motion to suppress hearing focused solely on whether the defendant was actually advised of his Miranda warnings and whether he was sufficiently coherent having possibly suffered a head injury after being struck on the head with a shovel rights to waive the At the close of the evidence at the suppression hearing the following exchange occurred between the court and defense counsel THE COURT s What the basis for your motion specifically Mr Howell Your motion says he wasn advised of his Miranda rights Now t s that not true According to the uncontroverted testimony he was advised of his rights at least three times I heard once So he was advised of his rights What else Specifically that he did not waive those rights as far as the Clinton Police Department went and that his medical condition would lend itself to him not fully understanding what was going on In denying the motion to suppress the court reasoned It is clear to me that he gave the statement voluntarily The statement for most of what I could hear at least was exculpatory He is attempting to explain what happened especially that the alleged victim had a knife In fact in testimony during the on the recording during the part where Mr Davis was being explained his rights he attempted to interrupt to start his statement They had to stop him and explain to him that first they had to go through the rights before he could make his statement I think he voluntarily made his statement I think he was aware of his rights And he proceeded to make the statement thereby waiving his rights I don think that whatever that t mark is that was made on the rights waiver form done by Mr Abshire II A the issues is an unequivocal assertion of his right to counsel relative to his medical condition are purely speculative From what I 0 heard on the audio portion of the statement he was able to converse coherently and make it clear what he thought his excuse was for attacking this individual I find no basis to suppress any of these statements The record reflects that the defendant counsel orally articulated two s specific grounds for the motion to suppress confession and statements namely or that the defendant factually did not waive his rights and that his medical condition at the time impaired his ability to understand or knowingly waive his rights Thus our review of the defendant written motion to suppress is limited to the specific s grounds raised below and considered by the trial court See State v Schaub 563 So 2d 974 975 n La App 1st Cir 1990 On appeal the defendant does not 3 challenge the admissibility of the statements based on either of these grounds articulated to the trial court Specifically in the proceedings below the defendant never challenged the sufficiency of the Miranda warnings given Because the defendant has raised a new basis for the motion to suppress for the first time on appeal this assignment of error is not properly before us and presents nothing further for our review Accordingly the defendant conviction and sentence are s affinned CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 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.
