State of Louisiana vs. Anthony T. Monroe (Granted; Affirmed.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5539A0AA-CE08-41DF-AFB6-6D85980C924B STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT 430 Fannin Street Shreveport, LA 71101 (318) 227-3700 No. 55,704-KW STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ANTHONY T. MONROE FILED: 11/22/23 RECEIVED: PM 11/17/23 On application of Anthony T. Monroe for SUPERVISORY WRIT in No. 234,040 on the docket of the Twenty Sixth Judicial District, Parish of BOSSIER, Judge Douglas M. Stinson. E. Bridget Wheeler Delia Addo-Yobo John Schuyler Marvin Cody Allen Boyd Counsel for: Anthony T. Monroe Counsel for: State of Louisiana Before PITMAN, STEPHENS, and HUNTER, JJ. WRIT GRANTED; AFFIRMED. Anthony T. Monroe seeks supervisory review of his misdemeanor convictions for battery of a police officer, in violation of La. R.S. 14:34.2; and resisting an officer, in violation of La. R.S. 14:108. Monroe raises four assignments of error, including claims of insufficiency of the evidence and violation of his right to a jury trial. Based upon the standard of review for the sufficiency of evidence provided by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979), we conclude that the evidence presented was sufficient to support both convictions. At trial, Monroe testified that he was aware that Trooper Matthews was a Louisiana State Police Officer and that he was being stopped for speeding. Monroe repeatedly refused direct and lawful instructions to exit his vehicle and once Monroe exited his vehicle, his resistance became both verbal and physical. Monroe pushed, shoved, and grabbed the officers when they attempted to put Monroe in handcuffs. The testimony of Trooper Matthews and Sergeant Conners was corroborated by the body camera and dash camera videos. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5539A0AA-CE08-41DF-AFB6-6D85980C924B No. 55,704-KW Page 2 As to Monroe’s claims that his constitutional right to due process was violated because he was not provided a jury trial, Monroe did not object when the State amended the bill of information to reduce the felony charge to the misdemeanor charge of resisting an officer, or when the bench trial started just moments after the State filed the amended bill of information. Monroe never raised the issue of constitutional violation at the trial court level, and accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review these assignments. U.R.C.A. 1-3. Issues not submitted to the trial court for decision will not be considered by the appellate court on appeal. First Federal Sav and Loans Ass’n of Rochester v. Mullone, 612 So. 2d 1016 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1993), citing, Williams v. Williams, 586 So. 2d 658 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the writ is granted and Anthony T. Monroe’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. 22 February Shreveport, Louisiana, this ________ day of ________________________, 2024. ___________________ ___________________ February 22, 2024 FILED: _____________________________ ____________________________________ DEPUTY CLERK ___________________
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.
