State Of Louisiana VS Randolph Manual
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2009 KA 2318 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RANDOLPH MANUEL Judgment Rendered May 7 2010 Appealed from the Thirty Second Judicial District Court d1 In and for the Parish of Terrebonne State of Louisiana Case Number 494 620 Honorable David W Arceneaux Presiding Joseph L Waitz Jr District Attorney Counsel for Appellee State of Louisiana Jason P Lyons Ellen Daigle Doskey Assistant District Attorneys Houma LA Bertha M Hillman Thibodaux LA Counsel for Defendant Appellant Randolph Manuel BEFORE CARTER C GUIDRY AND PETTIGREW JJ J GUIDRY J The defendant Randolph Manuel was charged by bill of information with one count of possession of cocaine a violation of La R 40 and pled not S 967 C guilty Following a jury trial he was found guilty as charged He was sentenced to five years at hard labor He now appeals contending that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction For the following reasons we affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS Terrebonne Parish Sheriff Office Deputy Timothy Goemans testified at s trial that on May 18 2007 he was patrolling the Grand Caillou area of Dulac Houma At approximately 11 p near the Combo Bridge he observed a 14 m vehicle swerving in the roadway The vehicle touched the fog line twice and crossed the center line once Deputy Goemans activated his emergency lights and spotlights to signal the vehicle to pull over and further observed the driver turning toward the back seat either reaching under the seat or moving around the console area The defendant was driving the vehicle and Brown was a passenger in the vehicle While asking the defendant for his driver license and registration s Deputy Goemans shined his flashlight into the vehicle looking for weapons He saw an open can of beer wedged between the center console and the seat He asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle and the defendant exited the vehicle Deputy Goemans questioned the defendant about the beer in the vehicle and asked him if there were any weapons or illegal narcotics in the vehicle The defendant denied that there was anything illegal in the vehicle Deputy Goemans asked the defendant for permission to search the vehicle and the defendant consented to a search of the vehicle According to Deputy Goemans thereafter he discovered a white powdery substance later determined to be cocaine scattered on top of the center console Deputy Goemans indicated that the defendant sface would have 2 been over the center console when he turned toward the back seat prior to pulling over Deputy Goemans advised the defendant ofhis Miranda rights asked him if he understood his rights and asked him if having these rights in mind he wished to talk to him According to Deputy Goemans the defendant admitted to using cocaine about a minute ago and added that he had used powder in the past three hours Deputy Goemans told the defendant that he Deputy Goemans had discovered suspected crack cocaine in the vehicle and asked the defendant to identify the substance According to Deputy Goemans the defendant identified the substance as cocaine and stated it was left over from earlier According to Deputy Goemans when asked if the cocaine belonged to him or the passenger the defendant stated that the beer belonged to him and that Brown knew nothing about the powder Following the stop Deputy Goemans determined that the vehicle was registered to someone other than the defendant Beverly Thomas the defendant sister also testified at trial She conceded s that she had previously pled guilty to introduction of contraband into a penal institution She indicated that the vehicle the defendant had been driving belonged to their mother She claimed that at least twenty different family members including her son who was a drug addict had ridden in the car at one time or another The defendant also testified at trial He conceded that he had previously pled guilty to distribution of marijuana He claimed Deputy Goemans stopped him as he was returning from Houma The defendant claimed while in Houma he had been stopped for speeding by eight or nine police officers The defendant claimed that during the earlier stop the police officers saw the open can of beer in the car looked around the inside of the car and did not arrest him for anything Miranda v Arizona 384 U 436 86 S 1602 16 L694 1966 S Ct 2d Ed 3 In regard to the stop by Deputy Goemans the defendant claimed at the time of the stop he was giving his brother John Brown a ride home The defendant denied reaching around in the vehicle prior to stopping the vehicle He claimed that after stopping his vehicle he immediately exited the vehicle and approached Deputy Goemans He conceded that he consented to a search of the vehicle He however denied claiming any ownership of the cocaine in the car He also denied using cocaine on the day of the incident He claimed that his nephew Beverly s Thomas son had ridden in the car earlier that day He conceded he did not bring any documentation to court or subpoena any witnesses to corroborate his claim of the traffic stop in Houma SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction because the State failed to exclude the reasonable hypothesis of innocence that the cocaine belonged to the passenger in the car or to one of the other people who had previously borrowed the car from the s defendant mother The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could conclude the State proved the essential elements of the crime and the defendant identity as the perpetrator of that crime beyond a s reasonable doubt In conducting this review we also must be expressly mindful of scircumstantial evidence test which states in part assuming every fact to Louisiana be proved that the evidence tends to prove every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded State v Wright 980601 p 2 La App 1st Cir 2 99 19 730 So 485 486 writs denied 99 0802 La 10 748 So 1157 00 2d 99 29 2d 0895 La 11 773 So 732 quoting La R 15 00 17 2d S 438 0 When a conviction is based on both direct and circumstantial evidence the reviewing court must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution When the direct evidence is thus viewed the facts established by the direct evidence and the facts reasonably inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element ofthe crime Wright 98 0601 at p 3 730 So at 487 2d As applicable here it is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled dangerous substance as classified in Schedule II La R S C 967 40 Cocaine is a controlled dangerous substance as classified in Schedule II See La R 40 Schedule II A S 964 4 The State is not required to show actual possession of drugs by a defendant in order to convict Constructive possession is sufficient A person is considered to be in constructive possession of a controlled dangerous substance if it is subject to his dominion and control regardless of whether or not it is in his physical possession Also a person may be in joint possession of a drug if he willfully and knowingly shares with another the right to control the drug However the mere presence in the area where narcotics are discovered or mere association with the person who does control the drug or the area where it is located is insufficient to support a finding of constructive possession State v Smith 030917 pp 5 6 La App lst Cir 03 31 12 868 So 794 799 2d A determination of whether there is possession sufficient to convict depends on the peculiar facts of each case Factors to be considered in determining whether a defendant exercised dominion and control sufficient to constitute possession include his knowledge that drugs were in the area his relationship with the person found to be in actual possession his access to the area where the drugs were found evidence 5 of recent drug use and his physical proximity to the drugs Smith 03 0917 at p 6 b Once the crime itself has been established a confession alone may be used to identify the accused as the perpetrator State v Carter 521 So 553 555 La 2d App 1st Cir 1988 After a thorough review of the record we are convinced that a rational trier of fact viewing the evidence presented in this case in the light most favorable to the State could find that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence all of the elements of possession of cocaine and the defendant identity as the perpetrator of that s offense The jury rejected the defendant theory that the cocaine on the console s belonged to someone other than the defendant who had been in the car This court will not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence to overturn a fact s finder determination of guilt The trier of fact may accept or reject in whole or in part the testimony of any witness Moreover when there is conflicting testimony about factual matters the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses the matter is one of the weight of the evidence not its sufficiency State v Lofton 961429 p 5 La App 1st Cir 3 691 So 97 27 2d 1365 1368 writ denied 971124 La 10 701 So 1331 Additionally 97 17 2d when a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant sown testimony that hypothesis falls and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt State v Captville 448 So 676 680 La 1984 No such 2d hypothesis exists in the instant case We also cannot say that the jury determination s was irrational under the facts and circumstances presented to them See State v Ordodi 060207 p 14 La 11 946 So 654 662 An appellate court errs 06 29 2d by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that N of the fact finder and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to and rationally rejected by the jury State v Calloway 07 2306 pp 1 2 La 1 1 So 417 418 per curiam 09 21 3d This assignment of error is without merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE 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.
