State Of Louisiana VS Robert Magidson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED fOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT Of APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 KA 1236 STATE Of LOUISIANA VERSUS ROBERT A MAGIDSON On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court Parish of St Tammany Louisiana Docket No 371199 C Honorable Martin E Walter P District Reed f Coady Judge Presiding Attorneys for State of Louisiana Attorney Covington Division LA and Kathryn Landry Special Appeals Counsel Baton Rouge LA James E Moorman Covington LA III Attorney for Defendant Robert A BEFORE Appellant Magidson PARRO GUIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ Judgment rendered March 23 2007 PARRO J The defendant Robert Magidson degree injuring public records Following a trial sentenced to sentence defendant was s R 14 132 B convicted at hard labor for placed the defendant now charged by bill of information with second violation of LSA by jury the defendant imprisonment and a was one as year The trial court appeals urging the following assignments of The failure guilty was suspended the two The years error produce through discovery all exculpatory evidence constitutes reversible error since there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed the result of the proceeding would have been different Specifically the state failed to provide Magidson a copy of the credentials marked RETIRED submitted in conjunction with his application for 1 renew 2 by the not The defendant charged supervised probation for on pled He state to of his pass The failure by the produce through discovery all exculpatory evidence there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed the result of the proceeding would have been different Specifically the state failed to provide Magidson a copy of the applications submitted by and issued to approximately three hundred individuals who did not meet the Commission s criteria to be eligible for passes state to constitutes reversible Finding merit in the no error since assigned errors we affirm the defendant conviction s and sentence fACTS At all times pertinent to this case the northshore passage onto the Lake required payment of Causeway Causeway individuals however to Causeway without charge Typically the cross for 1 the full time on were nonrevenue reverse a nonrevenue state militia Causeway passes side of the GNOEC and 4 were good for April of 2003 one passes Anthony Zito Certain 2 were year reserved full time paid disability A notice contained on the Expressway Commission nonrevenue in the event of retirement or termination of In nonrevenue persons with service connected Greater New Orleans application specifically provided that the 3 toll generating pass which allowed them paid law enforcement officials with arrest powers firefighters 3 organized The issued a Pontchartrain Causeway pass was Form 101 not to be used employment customer service a 2 representative with the Greater New Orleans unidentified female individuals Expressway Commission regarding the issuance of Zito referred the call to his Police launched verification The The defendant became a investigation revealed that Agent with the s U supervisor on May his renew nonrevenue received the pass several years earlier after as understood read side of the and upon supervisor agreed testified relocating 1 and The defendant Chicago the defendant selected the provided The defendant to be bound by the 0744 as Special went to the USINS to Louisiana from his had On option He listed badge number and signed the form indicating that he terms and conditions on the reverse a customer service representative Silvan testified that first she asked to requesting individual at the Commission to determine if they see nonrevenue the credentials and met any of the employment s badge criteria If examining the credentials and badge for authenticity Silvan determined that the application form they testified were to to meet the complete employment criteria photocopy either officially not issue an retired on was application only inspected the credentials and badge It was issued an Silvan advised Silvan further not standard item A memorandum from the Assistant District Director for defendant the individual If the individual did not meet the criteria ineligible for the pass and did that she procedure 1 Causeway pass retired a regarding the procedure she utilized for issuance of the requesting individual did that USINS Chante Silvan Causeway passes of the investigation application At trial office his as ineligible Causeway passes and their Full Time Paid Law Enforcement with Arrest Powers was employment agency Craig Robinson to an Shortly thereafter the Causeway 2002 the defendant employment portion of the application form indicating that he the 7 call from a Causeway passes nonrevenue in this subject received Immigration and Naturalization Service Commission office to the nonrevenue investigation involving the an Commission October 30 2000 3 Investigations of the USINS established that the The application submitted by the defendant Silvan testified that issuing representative interaction with the defendant she identification card was no was indicating that he May 7 2002 listed Silvan not although she did RETIRED was a Silvan testified present to retired police officers presentation of credentials indicating that the requesting individual retired would have ended the testified that he showed Silvan his identification card which The defendant did not recall whether Silvan RETIRED The defendant admitted that he marked the He option powers The defendant application process The defendant denied was and issued ever a nonrevenue USINS Office in Robinson reading the to select this reverse Craig Robinson side of the arrest to obtain particular category as application Causeway pass which he used four agent in Orleans of the his a The supervisor The defendant times between Johnston testified that Chicago area May 2002 He never Causeway pass on file the prior worked for Deportation and Removal to his retirement worked in New Orleans never formerly the Craig in New the defendant worked as an The defendant moved to the New after his retirement Commission was testified that the defendant the Assistant Director for was Robert James Lambert forms Immigration and Customs Enforcement New Orleans Robinson Orleans as photocopied his credentials April 2003 James Johnston the clearly stamped was full time law enforcement with defendant testified that he had also been told to list was the other hand explained that the agent who initially told him how Causeway pass had advised him nonrevenue on an because there Causeway pass nonrevenue the as personally recall her confident that the defendant did not issuance of provision authorizing the on is a is a the general manager of the Commission public entity and the application form for the public record According to Lambert Lambert further testified that it indefinitely procedure with any written record photocopy the applicant s credentials in the connection 4 testified that nonrevenue the Commission was his keeps the understanding that issuing representative with the was to application process Lambert Silvan denied application his whether the was unsure photocopied credentials then attached to the were photocopying the defendant s credentials in connection with application ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR BRADY VIOLATIONS In these assignments of suppressed information favorable v Maryland 373 s U 83 asserts the state erred in connection with his the defendant contends the state withheld error to him in violation of open file 83 S Ct 1194 failing 10 L Ed 2d 215 produce to a defendant also argues the state failed to discovery and Brady 1963 First the defendant copy of the credentials he application for renewal of his nonrevenue s criteria to be eligible for presented Causeway pass in The produce copies of the applications submitted by approximately three hundred individuals who like the defendant did Commission or He argues that Causeway passes nonrevenue not meet the the state s failure to disclose these items warrants reversal of his conviction The prejudice to a the State La 1044 state If defendant is lulled into a to the or must a a 766 31 a witness guilt L Ed 2d or writ denied state s constitute reversible error state upon La 1982 where the 1972 properly 501 So 2d 228 Supreme Court decision of Brady the innocence 104 defendant to in order to prepare his defense prejudice may to the accused where it is material to punishment This rule has been expanded testimony of Mitchell v misapprehension of the strength of the produce evidence that is favorable determinative of 763 against him fully disclose such Under the United States guilt case Ray 423 So 2d 1116 1118 v request s a unwarranted State surprise testimony Discovery procedures enable 1982 strength of the by the failure State La is to eliminate Roy 496 So 2d 583 590 La App 1st Cir 1986 v 1987 case pretrial discovery procedures defendant that could arise from 412 So 2d 1042 assess of purpose reliability Giglio v Where 5 to include evidence that or U S a credibility of that 405 s U 150 specific request impeaches witness may be 154 55 is made 92 S Ct for such information and the basis for subject matter of such a claiming materiality exists is reasonable it respond either by furnishing the information trial judge for an in camera 2392 2399 49 L Ed 2d 342 The test for 473 s U Louisiana 667 evidence is material See State only if there disclosed to the defense outcome 23 reasonable a is a Bagley 473 U S case fulfilled all of its Initially we 106 1241 in U S and has been 970 96 S Ct La v to the 1982 Bagley applied by the La 1986 The proceeding would have been different to undermine confidence in A the the defendant filed a written On the discovery motion on December by way of open file discovery day of trial defense counsel declared to Counsel for the defense did not discovery requests note defendant failed to seek without an considering whether the appropriate remedy show that defense counsel moved for as 97 to probability that had the evidence been discovery motion had been satisfied urge any additional substantial a 105 S Ct at 3383 discovery obligations the court that the 427 U S 488 So 2d 965 The record further reflects that the state 2003 remedies 1985 probability sufficient at 682 if require the prosecutor firmly established was Rosiere the result of the probability In the instant is v Agurs v 87 L Ed 2d 481 105 S Ct 3375 to or Cobb 419 So 2d 1237 v determining materiality Supreme Court reasonable State is material by submitting the information or See U S inspection 1976 request a state violated discovery the in the trial court The record does not mistrial set forth in LSA C Cr P art 729 S A a continuance which or any of the other provides of the proceedings it is brought to party has failed to comply with this Chapter or with an order issued pursuant to this Chapter the court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection grant a continuance order a mistrial on motion of the defendant prohibit the party from introducing into evidence the subject matter not disclosed or enter such other order other than dismissal as may be appropriate If at any time during the course the attention of the court that a The defendant did not raise any objection to the discovery in the trial court If the defendant did not avail himself of the remedies available to him in the trial court he effectively waived his right to raise the issue on 6 appeal See State v Quimby 419 So 2d 951 958 1982 La See also State 788 So 2d 565 570 71 writ denied 5 16 01 Moreover we note were exculpatory and showed that while the copies no badge presented did existed for this assertion defense counsel were The was no Insofar as the testimony and at the defendant badge RETIRED were status only referenced s trial inspected for The state could not applications ever to retired individuals On Defense counsel did not cites appeal the defendant the inaccurate information instant case were wherein if the nonrevenue provide any support alleged applications existed possession of the the regarding his employment in only the unsupported argument of even in the are actually by defense counsel argument that the Commission routinely issued during the trial Furthermore in 815 So 2d 833 applications of other retired individuals were proof that the applications relevant App 5th Cir Silvan further testified that the credentials and not reflect the defendant s his Causeway passes there made existed credentials s alleged applications with La La 5 10 02 the record is devoid of any evidence that such The connection or even defendant were disclose what did not exist concerned 01 1836 00 1833 that the defendant has failed to establish that the items in question authenticity lovick v defendant state or that they admittedly presented status to secure the nonrevenue Causeway pass We find For the no merit in these foregoing reasons assignments of the defendant error s conviction and sentence CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 7 are affirmed
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.
