State Of Louisiana VS Ronnie Allen
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2008 KA 2271 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RONNIE ALLEN Judgment Jw On Appeal Rendered May 8 2009 from the 21 st Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana District Court No 701318 The Honorable Bruce C Bennett Judge Presiding Scott M Perrilloux Counsel for District State of Louisiana Attorney Appellee Amite La Jeffrey Johnson Patricia Parker Assistant District Attorneys Amite La Margaret Counsel for Defendant Appellant S Sollars Thibodaux La BEFORE Ronnie Allen CARTER J C WHIPPLE AND DOWNING n CARTER C J The defendant Ronnie Allen with second degree murder I not pled the violation of La R S a The defendant moved guilty denied the motion court was convicted imprisonment as at a The defendant Following At the conclusion of a provided statement a hearing to the jury trial the defendant The trial court sentenced the defendant to life charged labor without hard 14 30 1 to suppress police during the investigation of the murder trial indictment charged by grand jury was benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence The defendant 1 The now defendant denied thus 2 appeals urging the following assignments of error challenges for resulting in reversible s The trial court erred by failing cause were wrongfully error to suppress the defendant s statement The 3 trial court cumulative Finding and no erred by allowing inflammatory and photographs into evidence merit in the assigned errors we affirm the defendant s conviction sentence FACTS On March 10 2007 Tangipahoa Parish when Nicholes Nicholes were floating s body the he charged Brown in the Manchac Canal in s were body of Clarence numerous vehicle and wallet abrasions to subsequently In response to information received nearby matter fishing the lifeless There Mr Nicholes an area George was discovered water investigation of the Co defendants also the and head recovered from during were in Alfred Pea the defendant and three co defendants Lee Michael Brown and Charles Dexter Martin disposition of the cases against these in the indictment The final defendants is unknown 2 were In charged with the murder defendant confessed his the In taped account chronological of the disposed approached residence body participation According statement taped the to defendant provided detailed a of how he and his friends beat the victim and The defendant stated that he and the codefendants to they thought he was the defendant all four beating Nicholes causing him eventually fall to attempting break into Manchac Canal Nicholes on When the ground The trunk the defendant started they opened the the head with a gun The men a began punching and men onto to Nicholes inside the trunk of his vehicle and drove him placed the police in the murder the statement Nicholes because 2 a men to the beating eventually dumped Nicholes s body into the canal DENIAL OF CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE In his first court assignment of abused its discretion in error denying the defendant contends that the trial the defense prospective jurors Harold Wright Edwin specifically challenges follow submits that because he on the and right right to be La Const art 2 However the home and had a tried 1 S fair and remain to full and required to to use Donnow He three peremptory unequivocally commit he impartial state constitutions provide by an impartial jury of his peers 16 Terry of cause was denied to his peremptory challenges Both the federal and the Hoover prospective jurors who failed law constitutional was for challenge a criminal defendant U S Const amend VI Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 797 testimony provided at trial established that Nicholes knew the touched bases with the quite well key to the residence 3 owner at least five or six times owner a of week provides the grounds for challenges for cause The article states in pertinent part The cause on state the 2 his or ground the defendant may that innocence of the defendant shall of challenge satisfied that he to can a render Juror for cause of guilt or the of itself be sufficient not if he declares juror a the juror is not impartial whatever An opinion or impression as to The partiality ground challenge and the court impartial verdict according an is to the law and the evidence The relationship whether by blood marriage employment friendship or enmity between the juror and the defendant the person injured by the offense the district 3 attorney or is such that it is reasonable to defense counsel conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict 4 The by the court a not accept the law as given to him court When juror will s ruling defendant exhausts all of his peremptory that erroneously denies a defendant deprives said defendant of his constitutional See reversal State Jacobs v Therefore 1283 1284 99 1659 to prove erroneous denial of a challenge for State peremptory challenges 9 19 97 700 So 2d 961 v a a challenge for s trial cause and statutory rights and requires La 6 29 01 that there has been reversal of the conviction and sentence challenges error defendant need and cause Lutcher 2 789 So 2d warranting the 1 only show the 96 2378 966 writ denied 97 2537 1280 the use of all of his La App 1 Cir La 2 6198 709 So 2d 674 So 2d 250 254 cert 731 In State denied 519 v Mitchell US 1043 94 2078 117 La 5 21 96 S Ct 614 4 136 L Ed 2d 538 1996 the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that defendant failed to all his peremptory use address the issue of whether there is challenge for in provides i pertinent part a need court denial of an erroneous trials of offenses n a not defendant s peremptory challenges In this peremptory challenges punishable by the defendant used case the defendant used Although remaining peremptory challenges number two the Mitchell or court at only nine peremptory challenges prospective jurors in question the three death hard labor each defendant shall have twelve at remove challenges a Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 799 cause necessarily by imprisonment to where the record reveals that he still had three the close of jury selection In footnote noted assuming the trial judge erred in denying defendant s challenge for cause of Ms Devillier the mere fact that he was required to use a peremptory challenge to remove Moreover even As stated in Ross her does not violate the federal constitution Oklahoma v L Ed 2d 80 487 U S 1988 so 81 long 88 as fact that the defendant had to achieve that result does not was Accordingly failure of the trial to exhaust his App 1 Cir 1 4 99 n do we judge failed 99 the jury use mean a S Ct 2273 2278 101 that sits is impartial the peremptory challenge to that the Sixth Amendment violated Mitchell 674 So 2d at 254 15 10 108 to 2 not reach the issue of the excuse these jurors peremptory challenges 734 So 2d 792 for cause State 795 796 v assignment of error is without merit 5 erroneous since the defendant Meads writ denied 748 So 2d 465 Thus this alleged 98 1388 La 99 1328 La DENIAL OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS The record in this suppress his statement to the the victim murder s police Following The defendant filed review of the trial reflects that the defendant filed case a in connection with the hearing the a s ruling La App By this assignment trial court s properly of ruling denying that the trial erred in court advised of his 1 Cir 12 5 error his motion being detained and questioned prior advised of the reason Detective the Tangipahoa hearing asked his not for gave was taken into statement making was not why he was he should have been fully a at a III both with the motion to suppress custody and questioned about the Detective Albritton read to the defendant rights during the taped a he The defendant interrogation 218 1 as informed of form statement prior and to taking the defendant to any questions being prior The defendant indicated that he understood his rights and return was to suppress testified Parish Sheriff s Office warnings from statement v seeks review of the Roy Albritton and Detective Alex Richardson homicide of Clarence Nicholes taped art State for his detention The defendant his Miranda to Code Crim P argues that under La he court The defendant contends to suppress rights because This application again the defendant denying seeking unpublished 08 the motion court to suppress reviewed the defendant s claim and denied the writ Allen 2008 0694 to trial court denied the motion the motion on motion investigation of supervisory writ application with this court a The defendant statement nor 6 was was not rights waived his promised anything he coerced into s in making the statement wanted At time no during his did the defendant indicate he statement lawyer a Detective Albritton further testified that based regarding the homicide the defendant along with picked cross up of his was On rights he No wasn t taped confession the defendant Following Albritton they not suspects were placed were taken into under an free the to a S voluntarily was ie the trial court advised come to the Following his questioned Detective when the defendant and the brief argument the trial to further lay placed in police unit but Right court informed the State it would foundation based a a suggested that being taken into Detective Albritton stated on finding its that 13 had been violated because it had not been proven that Based Detective Richardson to rights upon his arrest The trial court noted on a the trial suppression court s of the statement is finding the State called testify Detective Richardson testified that he the defendant to along court handcuffed and that whether the violation warranted question not was arrested When the trial the defendant had been read his another He being by the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriffs Office up custody to go upon asked was came Detective Albritton picked opportunity La Const art I He to go examination arrest arrest Following given cross According custody is be free was by the police Detective Albritton responded Sheriffs Office substation and he other three other suspects examination when asked if the defendant detained confidential call Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff s Office for questioning the by on a went into the interview 7 spoke room to with the defendant before give a taped statement Detective Richardson advised the defendant of his Miranda rights form The defendant indicated he understood rights form This the was same rights his form used when he advised the defendant of his Miranda warnings with a rights and signed the by Detective Albritton About five warnings minutes after Detective Richardson read the defendant his rights Detective Richardson and the defendant where Detective Albritton taped Both detectives waiting statement defendant into was In its a the interview room questioned the defendant Detective Richardson testified that he did anything in making went to for his return and he did statement during his promise the not not coerce him statement reasons for denying the motion to suppress sic its burden I think the State has born Okay that Miranda was given the trial court to stated show and waived and that the statement was voluntarily given Ms Henkels you argue that there s absolutely no way of I suggest that there is knowing what transpired otherwise another way and that desire s to hear from your client should you He can testify at a motion to let your client testify suppress that he was beaten with rubber hoses or phone books or whatever and he has not done that nor have you introduced to any evidence to contradict what the State has proven in this hearing I would further note that he up that right of be used against him a motion to suppress and it not in the case in chief except for impeachment purposes can give silence in even perhaps so the State has born I do note Article I a Section sic its burden technical violation 13 was violated by as previously the officers stated because immediately upon taking into custody an accused person should be properly Mirandized That s the reason for the rule and quite frankly if that was done in every case we might have a lot fewer of these hearings And I don t know why officers make arrests without reading the rights I find that incomprehensible in the year 2007 but nevertheless it happens once in a while So my ruling is that the motion is denied The defendant contends that the trial court erred in to suppress as he was not properly advised of his 8 denying his motion rights because he was not informed of why he transported in he provided was not being handcuffed and The defendant further contends that his interrogation unit to the Sheriff s station constituted police a prIor to his being detained and questioned was his Miranda warnings Mirandized for the first time at the at that time but arrest an Instead he was police station before being questioned by the police Before the State it bears the police custody received Miranda a art 703D State denied v and that the warning or statement promises See La R S 128 S Ct 494 La 11 4 be considered App 2 Cir 955 So 2d 90 103 07 169 L Ed 2d 346 2007 974 So 2d 667 5 30 08 983 So 2d 896 burden of proving beyond of the confession trial court s a trial court s a Beaner question for Beaner not Beaner v suppression hearing a 974 So 2d at 676 the trial court a free and be overturned 974 So 2d at 676 appeal Great implied must La La voluntary nature admissibility of 974 So 2d at 676 unless weight factual determinations because of its 9 or of 42 532 voluntary hearing on matter the State bears the The Beaner cert 2008 0061 writ denied reasonable doubt the free and findings following great weight and will the evidence At a improper influence State 676 As any direct by exertion of any involuntary and inadmissible 12 5 07 confession is by the or menaces La Code Crim P 15 451 federal constitutional law any confession obtained promises however slight in freely and was product of fear duress intimidation Blank 2004 0204 U S statement made inculpatory heavy burden of establishing that the defendant not the voluntarily made and threats inducements introduce any can are not is entitled a A to supported by placed opportunity upon the to observe witnesses and the assess credibility Beaner interviewing police officers alone statement was from been a taped testified Parish Sheriffs Office Tangipahoa was prior to taking read Detective the During to the Albritton responded the warnings taped statement again read the defendant his Miranda warnings understood and the defendant Albritton read that rights form which had already prepared by Detective Richardson right with the he read the defendant his Miranda statement Detective Albritton each Beaner 974 So 2d at 676 hearing Detective Albritton Tangipahoa Parish Sheriffs Office s Testimony of may be sufficient to prove that the given freely and voluntarily At the motion to suppress defendant 974 So 2d at 676 asked the After defendant if he Particularly Detective Yes sir defendant knowingly and purposely waive my right to the advice and presence of a lawyer while I am being questioned and I I anytime I decide to exercise your sic right to a lawyer that all questioning will be stopped and I will not be denied request of a lawyer Do you understand understand that The defendant At no at responded time Yes sir during his questioning did the defendant request At the conclusion of the defendant s taped statement between Detective Albritton and the defendant took Albritton make this Allen Ok uh did anybody offer place promise you anything to statement Was this statement made of your free will and accord Yes sir 10 lawyer colloquy No sir Albritton Allen or the following a own volunteer sic As previously noted Detective Richardson testified that defendant being questioned by Detectives Detective Richardson the rights form alone the to Albritton Prior to any from rights a rights and the form was statement to the Richardson defendant taped s Accordingly Insofar free and as with the motion asserted that the said we against court it the note statement make a a sufficiently waiver knowing knowing and intelligent a given statement promises not inadmissible the to anyone else reason ground for objection not 11 on was not made appeal menaces by was threats for detention argument was never that cannot be raised for the first time the defendant freely and voluntarily but intimidation Because the reason raised in connection because it the confession admissibility of a new was In the motion to suppress was or advised of the not was that this argument police officers represents giving voluntary to suppress and defendant rights and that his taped made under the influence of fear duress inducements to of Detectives Albritton and the to as the defendant argues that he for his detention to that find that the defendant made we was so prior hearing and the transcript of the indicate rights three times testimony to suppress statement waiver of his Miranda detectives The detectives Miranda his at least Mirandized the motion at understood mover defendant The defendant indicated that he understood his The defendant taped and Richardson Detective Richardson advised the defendant of his questioning signed to spoke prior articulated to the trial properly before this See La Court Code Evid art La Code Crim P l 103A La 841 art State Brown v The defendant further contends that he warnings at the moment of unit to placed into a detectives Albritton testified the motion at transported police and detectives testified transported Richardson to not was when he to the police station art I Neither the officer who nor to the to suppress the officer who defendant investigation reason or arrest detention his or and his right right to to the Miranda was warnings advised of his Nevertheless determining consider all 1222 1223 whether the As even arguably a person who has been previously noted Albritton rights by Deputy Smith prior if the defendant had not been was the moment of arrest this defendant s motion to suppress was correct not limited to the evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion We may In are trial commission of any offense protective Louisiana constitutional scheme Mirandized at that moment which we at the See also La Code Crim P art 218 1 Thus under testified that the defendant 3 for his or right against self incrimination being transported to When any person has been arrested remain silent to with defendant of his Miranda fully of the to speaking However hearing he shall be advised detained is entitled sat 3 13 S detained in connection with the more Only the Deputy Smith the deputy who initially transported Under La Const the handcuffed and interviewed the defendant police station advised the assistance ofcounsel was Miranda who police station location in Ponchatoula his given his hearing suppress the motion Albritton testified that a be was police station prior at the defendant to the which arrest the defendant to the the defendant at the at 392 1st Cir 1991 App rights 594 So 2d 372 ruling on pertinent evidence given n at the trial of the 2 La 1979 12 case State v Chopin 372 2d So would have bearing no on State bears the burden of the showing warnings proof of whether moment of prior arrest The suppress states in to the arriving to While the that the defendant received Miranda at the by the police station Motion of the confession the defendant not or if any made because statements being transported to admissibility was Mirandized at the police station not necessary was defendant at this time were subject of the motion not the Suppress Statement while ie filed to by defense counsel pertinent part Defendant to suppress for moves evidence use as herein any oral or taped STATEMENT in the possession of the State more specifically A STATEMENT GIVEN TO DETECTIVE ROY DETECTIVE ALEX TANGIPAHOA STATION AND AT RICHARDSON PARISH THE OFFICE SHERIFF S ON OR ABOUT THE sic sic ALLBRITTON 10TH SUB DAY OF APRIL 2007 which is inadmissible in evidence because it was by mover to said police officers or anyone else freely and voluntarily but was made under the influence of fear not made intimidation duress menaces threats inducements and promIses This hearing point was reiterated After defense counsel after the defendant including the was by the prosecutor argued to suppress that any conversation that took placed into custody should be suppressed the prosecutor stated I don t know that there been any offer conversation or the any casual conversation whether it there was statement which is being s s inculpatory or or really re not sure showing The not or only pursuant to I understand the offering that of that nature offered is after Miranda lawful arrest and Im not her argument Judge We trying to point a of introduce any conversation that may have occurred from the ride from Ponchatoula to the substation in Hammond or any brief conversation that may have occurred prior Albritton entered and affirmed the rights 13 place in the vehicle and handcuffed police station statement at the the motion at to the time Detective The State the motion defendant was Mirandized Nothing Mirandized statement in separately by prior precisely was to on at the the was that the statement to the Whether the defendant required moment of arrest provided by the defendant transcripts of statement making his inculpatory by the State more question and did prove based to prove hearing and the defendant s taped to suppress was detectives sought is irrelevant after being The Mirandized both detectives Considering the it is clear that the defendant made foregoing a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights and that his taped statement not err in given to the denying the detectives defendant was s free and The trial court did voluntary motion to suppress the statement This assignment of error lacks merit INFLAMMATORY AND CUMULATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS In this in allowing the State to admit autopsy and of the crime were depicting manner any over scene his probative the victim s objection photographs of the He asserts that the gruesome highly inflammatory cumulative outweighed the trial court erred assignment of error the defendant contends court He further asserts the photographs blood in the vehicle properly admitted upon the victim as not foregoing error In response the State they were in disclosed in reasons photographs by the victim 14 a timely the defendant allowing these items avers that the pictures necessary to illustrate the The number of number of injuries sustained prejudicial were committed reversible be introduced into evidence photographs substantially in advance of the trial For all of the contends the trial s effect and the value thereof victim introduced severity was to were of the attack justified by the During trial the State announced its intent The photographs was dusted for body was of the kept The defendant of the photographs bloody display of the nature to they merely provided as corroborate the s a a description The series of vehicle it as alleged the victim to s untimely viewing After photos s the introduction trunk based upon the State be admitted into evidence admissible where it is the trial court overruled the defendant photographs to area contemporaneously objected disclosure and the cumulative them shots of the victim photos included various fingerprints and the trunk introduce to the objections and allowed found the photographs s court visualization of the crime of the vehicle scene and a provided by the expert witness Louisiana Code of Evidence article 403 evidence may be excluded if its the or provides that otherwise relevant probative value is substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice confusion of the issues by considerations illustrate or shed light describe the person provided their of undue upon any fact place probative Steward 95 1693 La delay or value or waste of issue in the or thing depicted outweighs any misleading the jury Photographs that time case or that are admissible generally are prejudicial effect relevant to See State v 681 So 2d 1007 1011 The State 1 Cir 9 27 96 App or is entitled to the moral force of its evidence and postmortem photographs of murder victims delicti evidence S Ct admissible establishing wounds and 96 1208 are to of death provide positive La 5 20 97 570 cause to prove corpus 139 as 410 as corroborate other location and identification of the victim 704 So 2d 756 L Ed 2d well to 776 1997 15 cert denied The trial placement of State 522 U S court s v Koon 1001 admission 118 of will photographs that the photographs and lead them State not to be overturned inflammatory are so as to La overwhelm the jurors 1 Cir 2 14 03 App La 10 31 03 writ denied 2003 1145 value of this evidence far in the vehicle and the crime were the arise from 1982 State Insofar clearly noted v effect As s the timeliness of the disclosure of the as the record that the on and the State photos in question only shortly to to the State s case 496 So 2d 583 1987 strength of the State If s a may constitute reversible a defendant La App IstCir defendant is lulled into case by the failure to error Roy defendant that could a to properly to prepare 1986 that the late disclosure of the was photographs the assess court through no In La the his defense writ denied a 501 of the prejudice ruling on the specifically noted fault of the State produce photographs it did 16 1044 misapprehension 496 So 2d at 590 case not a fully disclose such timeliness of the disclosure in the instant obviously could to him in order against 590 prejudice pretrial discovery Mitchell 412 So 2d 1042 v enable came The purpose of defense eliminate unwarranted La The State probative from the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab of the State So 2d 228 find that the possession of surprise testimony Roy we into Discovery procedures strength 466 testimony regarding the condition of the victim presenting them is 839 So 2d 455 potentially prejudicial any by the Sheriffs Office photographs procedures outweighs scene the State not taken before reason correctly reasoned the photographs in question were probative corroborating photographs finds 857 So 2d 476 Upon reviewing the contested photographs the trial court court convict the defendant without sufficient other evidence Booker 2002 1269 v appeal unless the reviewing on not have in its posseSSIOn 1555 held However 1567 1568 Kyles v Whitley 131 L Ed 2d 490 if error a discovery violation occurred it would without actual 2000 2800 La prejudice App to the defendant 1 Cir 9 28 State did violate the rules of discovery demonstrate any does into not a reflect any prejudice manner misapprehension Therefore outweighs allowing the potential for his case note that caused strength of the State the Nevertheless See State 1029 1033 v Francis Even if the the defendant has failed by in which the defendant of the because to we prosecutor be constitute reversible not s case 01 809 So 2d a agencies state 115 S Ct 437 438 mandates that 1995 responsible for information held by other even to 514 U S 419 the State The record might have been lulled s case evidentiary value of these photographs prejudice we find them to be admitted into evidence no error This in the trial court s assignment of error lacks merit For the foregoing reasons the defendant s conviction and affirmed CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 17 sentence are
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.
