State Of Louisiana VS Tabvis Lavell Williams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIA vVTA RT CO OF t1PPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2013 KA 0441 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS TABVIS LAVELL WILLIAMS Judgment Rendered N 1 2 3 k On Appeal from the 32nd 3udiciai District Court In and for the Parish of Terrebonne State of Loiusiana Trial Court Ivro 601956 Honorable John R Walker Judge Presiding x Joseph L Waitz District Jr Attorneys for Appellant State fLouisiana Attorney Ellen Daigle Doskey Assistant District Attorney Houma LA Bertha M Hillman Louisiana Appellate Attorney for Defendant Appellee Project Tabvis Lavell Williarns Thibodaux LA BEFORE KUF NHIGGINBOTHAM AND THERIOT JJ HIGGINBOTHAM J Defendant Tabvis Lavell Williams was charged by bill of information with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a violation of La R 14 He S 95 1 pled not guilty and waived his right to a jury tr After a bench trial defendant al was found guilty as charged The trial court denied defendant motions for new s trial and postverdict judgment t acquittal and sentenced him to tw years at elve hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence The trial court also denied his motion to reconsider sentence Defendant now appeals alleging one assignment of error arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction For the following reasons we affirm s defendant conviction and sentence FACTS On April 1 2011 Samantha Leonard walked into the Houma Police Department on Honduras Street to report that defendant her ex had boyfriend threatened to kill three police officers According to Leonard defendant had made this threat early that morning while he was armed with a pistol Officer Cory Beal received Leonard complaint and traveled to her apartment on Chateau Court s where he encountered defendant Officer Beal spoke with defendant who he described as cooperative The officer was not able to locate a pistol in plain view during the brief period he was at the apartment Defendant agreed to leave sapartment and was transported by police to a nearby gas station Leonard Leonard returned to her apartment after defendant left Within an hour of returning to her apartment Leonard located the pistol a revolver in the underwear drawer of her children dresser Leonard again called the police and Officer Beal s returned to the apartment to collect the pistol DefendauYs prior felony offense stipulated to by both parties at trial was a February 8 2005 conviction fot possession of cocaine in Terrebonne Parish under docket number 423 803 2 dant Defe agreed to be inteztiiewed b LRobert Lottinger III on etective April 7 2011 After being inforr of his Miranda rights defendant initially led denied any ownership of the pi tating that Leonard bought and used it for tol protection in her job as a ta driv I stated that he and Leonard r vvever he would occasion o intv the uod anci s the pistal D Lottinger lZv hoot e titi tec then lied to defendant and tc him thaz his fnger were foiuld on the pistol ld rints At that point defendant changed his story and stated that Leonard had bought the pistol for defendant so that he could use it for his own protection from some people with whom he had trouble Defendant also admitted to owning a caliber rifle 22 When Detective Lottinger told defendant that he would be arrested defendant asked if he could make a deal to work off his charges Leonard later brought the 22 caliber rifle to the police ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In his sole assi tof err defendant argues that the evidence presented nmen r at trial was insufficient to support his convit for possession of a firearm by a cion convicted felon A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannoi stand as it violates due process See LJ C amend S nst XIV La Cons art I 2 In reviewing claims challenging the sufficiency of the evidence fhis eourt must consider whether after viewing the evidence in the Iight most favoral to the prosecution any rational le trier of fact could have found the essenfial elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt See Jackson vo Virginia 443 U 307 319 99 S 2781 S Ct 2789 61 L 560 1979 See also La Code Crim P art 821 State 2d Ed B Ordodi 2006 La 11 946 Soe2d 654 660 State v Mussall 523 0207 06 29 2d So 13US 1308 La 1988 The Jackson standard of review incorporated in 09 Article 821 is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence both direct B Miranda v Arizona 384 li 436 86 S 1602 16 L S Ct 2d694 1966 Ed 3 and circumstantial for reasonable doubY Whzn ax circumstantial evidence La R 15 pro that the fac2tir rri be satisfied the overall evidence S 43Fs ides der st excludes every reasonable hypothesis of nnocence State v Patorno 2001 2585 La App lst Cir 6 822 02 2d 21 So 141 1 44 To prove a vialation o L R 14 the state must prove 1 the a S 9 1 s defendant status as a convicted f2j possession by the defendant and 3 the lon instrumentality possessed was a firearm See State v Mose 412 So 584 585 2d La 1982 The state must also prove that ten years have not elapsed since the date of completion of C 1 95 14 the punishment for the prior felony conviction La S R Here the state and the defense stipulated Lo the existence of s2005 felony conviction for possession of cocaine so the only element defendant at issue is whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was in possession of a firearm At trial Leonard testified that defendant hid himself in the trunk of her van as she drove her children to school on the morning of April 1 2011 Once s Leonard children exited the van defendant revealed himszlf and sat in the front seat At that time Leonard saw the pistol stuck in defendant pants s In addition to Leonard s testimony the triai court heard Detectiive s Lottinger iestimony regarding defendant statement Defendant told Detective s Lottinger that Leonard had bought the pistol to use for his own protzction He also admitted o possessing an additional firearm a caiiber rifle 22 Defendant did not testify at trial On appeal defendant argues that Leonard concocted her story regarding defendant reats nd gun possession as a way to stl frame him following their break up on March 31 2011 Defendant contends that Leonard was motivated to lie in order to get defendant to leave her apartment He also asserts that his inculpatory statements to Detective Lottinger were unreliable 4 because they vere made nna duress and lie sts that he believed he could avoid r e prison by giving a false conaai wor off time fession sin After a thorough review af the record viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prczsecution we concludE tlhat a rational trier of fact eould have found that the state praved beyona a reasonable doui that c was guilty t efendant There was no dispate at trial abouY defrendant sstdtus as a prior felor of or y ender about the cleansing period for that pxior conviction To prove that defendant possessed a firearcn the state presented evidence from Leonard who actually saw defendant in possession of both the pistol and the rifle and from Detective Lottinger to whom defendant admitYed possessing both the pistol and the rifle In its oral reasons followin the trial the trial court reco g nized that Leonard and defendant had some sort of break up but the court apparently found this fact to be irrelevant outside of the fear it caused Leonard When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the factfinder reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the deTense th hypothesis falls and the defendant is at guilty unless there is another hypothesis hich raises a reasonable doubt See State v Moten S 10 So 55 61 La Ap l st Cir writ denied 514 So 126 2d r 2d La 1987 An ap court errs by substztuting its appreciation of the evidence ellate and credibility of wimesses for that ef the faotfinder and thereby nverturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypoth of innocence presented to and sis rationally rejected by the ractfinder See State va Calloway 2007 L 2306 a 09 21 1 1 So3d 417 418 per curiam In reviewing the evidence we cannot say that the trial court determination s was irrational under the facts and circ presented to it See Ordodi 946 umstances 2d So at 662 The state presented sufficient ev for the trial court to dence determine that defendant committed the offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon 5 This assignment of error is wiihaut merit REVIEW FOR ERROR Under La Gode Crim P art 92 we are Iimited in our review to errors 2 discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and prc without ceedings inspection of the evidence Sce State v Price 2005 La App 1st Cir 2514 06 28 12 952 So 112 123 en banc writ denied 2007 La 2 2d 130 08 22 976 So 1277 After a careful review of the record we have found a sentencing 2d error For his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon defendant was sentenced to twelve yeaz at hard labor without benefit of parole s probation or suspension of sentence Whoever is found guilty of violating the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon provision shall be imprisoned at hard labar for not less than ten nar more than twenty years without the benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence and be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars See La R 14 S 95 B 1 The trial court failed to impose the mandatory fine Accordingly defendant s sentence which did not include the mandat ryfine is illegally lenient However since the sentence is not inhexently prejudicial to defendant and neither the state nar defendani has raised this sentencing issue on appeal we decline to correct this error See Price 952 So at 124 2d 25 CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 6 I
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.
