State Of Louisiana VS Thedrick Edwards
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2008 KA 2011 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS THEDRICK EDWARDS Judgment Rendered r On Appeal June 12 2009 from the 19th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana District Court No 07 06 0032 The Honorable Richard Chip Moore Judge Presiding Hillar C Moore III Counsel for District State of Louisiana Baton Attorney Rouge La Dana J Cummings Stacy L Wright Assistant District Appellee Attorneys Frank Sloan Appellate Counsel for Defendant Appellant Mandeville La Thedrick Edwards BEFORE CARTER J C WHIPPLE AND DOWNING JJ CARTER C J defendant The Thedrick indictment with armed kidnapping RS 42 14 found the defendant the one count of The defendant or on was motion guilty as found each armed suspension of The defendant s count of Those sentences other aggravated also on count the and to on thirty to life each be served plea of A denied was counts a La of armed not jury robbery kidnapping attempted armed robbery charge years sentences to parole probation are confession imprisonment without the benefit of further sentenced aggravated robbery violations of all five on to with the rape rape The defendant entered charged guilty robbery without the benefit of aggravated armed to suppress sentenced sentence was 1 charged by grand jury rape and both counts of aggravated not was was counts attempted and 14 27 aggravated The defendant labor and 14 44 The defendant guilty robbery five two counts 14 64 Edwards or count imprisonment of consecutively hard parole probation be served suspension at of consecutively at hard labor sentence on the aggravated kidnapping to each other and to the sentences The defendant that the trial F or the court following now appeals urging erred in reasons denying we in his sole assignment of error the motion to suppress his confession affirm the convictions and sentences originally included further charges for two counts of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and one count of conspiracy to commit aggravated rape but those The indictment counts were dismissed 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS On a student and on at opened across Drive beer and his vehicle his University Road and then drove Boyd a approximately Louisiana State Highland East 13 2006 at May face semiautomatic door G W girlfriend began s pointed a head and told Eaton Another male a 45 to to out step caliber black get back into his subject also armed the front of Eaton were s later identified of black bandana with a gun vehicle after Eaton unlocked the back door s subject who entered down nose at Eaton The assailants State Street As Eaton s subject wearing black clothing and entered the back of Eaton complex the apartment of his on the driver vehicle and unlock the doors armed the Circle K was Eaton turned his vehicle off from the pistol went to Eaton who Ryan m Nicholson Drive near opened male a to 11 30 p The vehicle drove away from the as the defendant and Joshua Johnson The assailants demanded money and ATM was so that he could retrieve cash unable assailants were of his After his hands were apartment on depleted According angry because he did not have any money an so he the to Eaton Eaton suggested Bluebonnet Road and take they entered the apartment the assailants blindfolded together began rummaging through The assailants also took Eaton telephone speaker when speak accounts s to belongings the assailants agreed several items the Eaton retrieve any cash from the ATM to that the assailants take him to his some ultimately took the victim to G W calmly G W called and make s his cellular and took telephone turning on The assailants instructed Eaton to arrangements for 3 apartment Eaton tied a meeting G W told Eaton that she was Chelsea at assailants led Eaton at Bar and asked him to meet her there s gunpoint back to his vehicle passenger seat and drove away from his defendant was driving behind Eaton Eaton to get a to Chelsea to her Bar s was by G W to Eaton in the back seat and when the vehicle look at the defendant good to Eaton The the sitting stopped assailants encouraging her to go apartment ultimately drove back Eaton and his assailants where Easton time put him in the front apartment According and Johnson point to text messages sent responded back this They drove able was at The was instructed at her roommate R M G W gunpoint to knock and her friend L R GW to on s apartment the door at were By that the apartment When G W answered the door the defendant and Johnson rushed in behind Eaton was L R vaginally and unable was believed it also the apartment They rummaged through to to anally raped identify her attacker of her attacker items and told Eaton that Two assailants complex s as his face was items to to out L R steal perform oral sex obscured but Eaton was dragged upstairs identity The assailants and gathered of the apartment and used RM raped they would abandon his vehicle nearby assailants left Eaton walked to gunpoint and forced be the defendant R M was unsure telephone at finding a several After the passerby s call for emergency assistance days later during the early morning hours of May began following near State Street into his vehicle Marc Verret After Verret They brandished as he drove parked through his apartment the assailants forced guns and had bandanas One of the assailants entered the front of Verret 4 15 2006 two s vehicle over as entry their faces Verret slid to the passenger taken to an s side and the other entered the back of the A TM where he withdrew funds and gave them The assailants exited the vehicle after Verret was able to Johnson identify taking the as one Verret car to was the assailants money and other items of the armed assailants ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In his sole erred in court assignment of error the defendant contends that the trial denying the that he did notes however he testified that his trial denial of testimony his was motion hearing trial that he at but his request interrogation at the testify not not to requested was not attorney before his an based inculpatory statement or confession advised of his constitutional 406 State States 96 0127 384 U S Supreme delineated right evidence to 436 Court rights The La and made 19 4 86 S Ct rights warnings must an credibility attorney was not accused who makes a intelligent 15 12 95 671 So 2d 925 16 L Ed 2d 694 set of safeguards of persons remain silent that any against 96 an 1 Cir App 1602 promulgated constitutional interrogation the an a during custodial interrogation Davis 94 2332 La v writ denied Arizona on court The State bears the burden of proving that rights to suppress The defendant concludes that the rebutted suppress the motion The defendant further claims ignored was on determination since the issue of whether he asked for before the The defendant motion to suppress his confession subject to inform the person in statement him and that he has a 5 right first waiver of those 666 So 2d 400 In Miranda 1966 to was an v the United protect the therein custodial police custody that he has he does make may be used to the presence of an as attorney either retained order to addition introduce into evidence to not defendant a showing that the Miranda show that the statement affirmatively and Miranda 384 U S at 444 86 S Ct at 1612 appointed or requirements Court found that if a Arizona 451 U S 477 an accused either before further right police advised of his to 101 rights deal with the further initiated Once himself initiates 99 0569 532 U S 959 his Miranda or 121 S Ct 1488 right incriminating accused to the at any 1884 1885 Supreme stage of the can v 68 L Ed 2d 378 asks for counsel a valid only by showing that he responded interrogation further 1885 Tilley menaces even if he has been expressed his desire not subject to the authorities until counsel is present unless the police v voluntary Court in Edwards individual in custody has conversations with the State and police only through counsel the accused is interrogation by accused an must lend them substance held that when be established custodial intimidation Supreme during interrogation or cannot to free and was manner S Ct 1880 confirmed these views and waiver of that to 484 the State attorney before speaking there The United States questioning met confession in 86 S Ct at 1612 suspect indicates in any an or 15 451 at 444 445 process that he wishes to consult with 1981 were confession or La R S promises or 384 U S In Miranda no statement made under the influence of fear duress threats inducements be s In Edwards La 7 6 00 767 So 2d 6 admissibility determined initiate further conversation 6 exchanges 451 U S at 484 485 149 L Ed 2d 375 counsel the statement is communication or by a When of a two an 11 or 101 S Ct at cert denied accused invokes subsequent confession step inquiry communication and did the was the purported waiver of counsel knowing circumstances shall be compel a 767 So 2d at 11 Tilley to any treatment subjected and courts 2 are designed by the 0011 Leger 2005 127 S Ct 10 7 La 06 the defendant motion s to suppress the pertinent evidence given at the trial of the 1223 2 n a we claim that he of the Baton to suppress note hearing on In was ruling judge mind to on on a motion motion a correct State v we are not limited We may consider all State case an 372 So 2d Chopin v hearing that he was s to suppress did testified BRPD the first officer Sergeant motion to at the motion interview the defendant Cox read the defendant his Miranda Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 703G provides follows as When a ruling on a motion to suppress a confession or statement is adverse to the defendant the state shall be required prior to presenting the confession or statement to the the circumstances the jury to introduce evidence concerning surrounding making of the confession or statement of enabling the jury to determine the weight to be given for the purpose confession or statement ruling made adversely motion to the defendant to suppress a confession defendant from introducing evidence circumstances or surrounding during making jury to determine 7 weight a prevent the concerning the not the trial the the to trial upon prior statement does of the confession the the purpose of enabling the confession or statement not Sergeant Tillman Cordell Cox attorney Rouge City Police Department A to determining whether the the motion that the defendant requested after he turned himself in 2 or La 1979 At the outset include body 122 cert denied 549 U S 2007 at 1222 trial a 936 So 2d 108 the evidence adduced to on No arrestee abuse of that discretion an 167 L Ed 2d 100 1279 of ruling suppress will not be disturbed absent on effect vested with great discretion when Consequently to suppress ruling 15 452 RS La see confession of crime Trial 1221 intelligent under the totality of the or statement for to be given the The defendant indicated that he understood his rights initially give statement a with the offenses except The interview The State asked booked and he attorney defendant was not threatened was Fairbanks of the BRPD suppress not made any was to Fairbanks at any the cross drugs Miranda including at the motion and rights details that had not the defendant did not ask for examination acknowledging was offered an that the defendant rejected signed statements in the absence of counsel if the defendant understood that he had the point waiver in the yet been an attorney arrest was attorney or advised of his right that he understood he had the interview after his to the defense attorney asked Detective counsel further asked if the defendant make a to involvement attorney and Detective Fairbanks responded positively Fairbanks stated an not appear to The second half of the interview with Detective Fairbanks On was During direct examination by the State Detective public Fairbanks if the defendant an promises and did The defendant confessed specifically testified that point recorded or do Cox testified that the Detective Fairbanks testified executed to subsequently interviewed by Detective Greg armed robberies and the rapes released Sergeant hearing that he read the defendant his of rights form anything terminated and the defendant was responded negatively defendant have not not Sergeant Cox if the defendant requested be under the influence of alcohol The that he did to say and did rights that the right The defense right and Detective waiver of to to rights form counsel and chose to The defense counsel then asked right to counsel at the time of the and Detective Fairbanks stated that he made that very clear to the defendant Detective Fairbanks also testified that 8 there were no promises or threats under the influence of drugs and that the defendant did participated suppress of Detective Fairbanks in the informed of his questioning s who was present during the interview of the defendant and of the defendant testified at and that he indicated he understood them rights Lieutenant Attuso testified that the defendant no promises was the influence of alcohol or was Lieutenant to counsel not threatened or coerced to be under made and that the defendant did were to right Attuso also testified that the defendant did not invoke his that the motion Lieutenant Attuso confirmed that the defendant hearing be alcohol or Lieutenant John Attuso of the BRPD untaped portion not appear to not seem drugs Sergeant Cox further questioned the defendant after the interview by the other officers and the defendant made further Although he was the defendant subject to no was concerned with the promises or indications statements at length were that point of incarceration that made During the argument portion of the motion to suppress hearing defense counsel stated that the basis for the motion to suppress was to that the evidence did not rather alleged that was made was defendant s confession Based on demeanor was not the on not freely promises testimony presented the coerced and videotape was and voluntarily made of fear under the influence intimidation threats inducements and counsel was The State noted that the motion to the confession the confession show support the confession and that the defendant given information that he admitted suppress the and without the benefit of at the trial the hearing and the court found that the freely and voluntarily given 9 duress During the defendant to the confessed trial s testimony I naive and soft hearted really wanted defendant further testified that the used not was recorded sic ignoring that he would A on appeal allow the trial particular an The under the prohibited the at force and a an he could not recall took him in rights and asked yeah but they before the trial raising on appeal of a opportunity to if he wanted ed like act an they informed was ground for objection is art 841 in order court not 2d So 141 reference in the motion that he was one questioned defendant did of the three witnesses and this witness not testify or as replied offer any to first consider the merits of the 440 Cressy v new of La Code Crim P At the motion to suppress attorney right to a room attorney if he cooperated See State The defendant did an was that Detective Fairbanks 142 143 We find that the defendant failed to preserve the instant issue for questioned The of the interview when force I told him provisions court claim counsel being time same The defendant also testified that he me need help of basis for the motion to suppress cannot be articulated for the new first time not was more specified wall read his Miranda The defendant added attorney was a name to portion The defendant and another officer whose chained him to it instant offenses because the defendant testified that he hearing to after La appeal to suppress asserting the defense 1983 nor his argue right counsel to only whether the defendant asked for that the defendant did testimony regarding an not The assertion of his counsel Although the defendant subsequently presented trial testimony regarding an assertion of his right to counsel this 10 testimony was in direct conflict with testimony presented by all three officers hearing suppress Moreover trial testimony regarding trial During the trial his on request for No to attorney an was rebutted during the examination the defense attorney asked Detective Fairbanks if the defendant responded the motion the defendant claims otherwise his although cross at ever asked for attorney and he an 3 ma am During the videotaped confession the defendant expressed hesitancy only to the that he extent incarceration he would receive asked for an attorney detailed facts that herein concerned about the number of years of was There The confession contained were consistent with intimidation was menaces While ample unprompted highly statements Further including timelines and locations that the confession indication that the defendant was no given by there was no the issue raised on appeal conclude that the record supports the trial motion to suppress the confession or duress promises was court The sole indication of fear being made under the influence threats inducements the victims not s preserved we further denial of the defendant s assignment of error lacks merit CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED 3 Detective Fairbanks testified allegations are examination in direct conflict with the State testified to in the State La App 1 st prior s s to the defendant previous testimony by witness need not be recalled affirmative However showing Cir 1990 11 State v on a State when s a defendant witness on s direct rebuttal to repeat what he 1154 Toomer 572 So 2d 1152
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.
