State Of Louisiana VS Jesse Paul Holtzclaw
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2009 KA 2326 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JESSE PAUL HOLTZCLAW Judgment rendered June 11 2010 v Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of St Tammany Louisiana Trial Court No 453587 Honorable Reginald T Badeaux III Judge HON WALTER P REED ATTORNEYS FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY STATE OF LOUISIANA COVINGTON LA AND KATHRYN W LANDRY SPECIAL APPEALS COUNSEL BATON ROUGE LA ERIC LABOURDETTE ATTORNEYS FOR LA SLIDELL DEFENDANT APPELLANT AND JESSE PAUL HOLTZCLAW RACHEL M YAZBECK NEW ORLEANS LA BEFORE CARTER C GUIDRY AND PETTIGREW JJ J PETTIGREW J The defendant Jesse Paul Holtzclaw was charged by bill of information with one count of monetary instrument abuse a violation of La R 14 and pled not S 72 A 2 guilty Following a jury trial he was found guilty as charged Thereafter the State filed a habitual offender bill of information against the defendant alleging he was a second felony habitual offender Following a hearing he was adjudged a secondfelony habitual offender and was sentenced to five years at hard labor without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence He now appeals challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction We affirm FACTS Theresa Griffin the victim testified at trial On November 12 2007 she was working as a teller at Quick Cash Check Cashing Quick Cash in Covington Louisiana Prior to cashing checks Griffin routinely contacted the bank or company that had issued the check and verified its validity On November 12 2007 the defendant presented State Exhibit 3 a counterfeit 00 500 American Express Traveler Check from Wells Fargo Bank to Griffin and asked s that she cash the check Griffin asked the defendant for his identification and he gave her his driver license Griffin made copies of the traveler check and the defendant s s s s driver license and asked the defendant where he had obtained the check defendant claimed that a friend had given him the check The Griffin had worked for three years at Citizens Bank and Trust and Parish National Bank but had never seen a traveler s check from Wells Fargo Bank She also noted misspellings and felt that the color was off on the check When Griffin called American Express to verify the check she learned that it was a falsified item and signaled her coworker to call the police When the co worker picked up her cell phone the defendant began hitting the glass separating the tellers from the customers and demanded that Griffin return his driver license He did s The predicate offense was set forth as the defendant April 4 2000 guilty plea under Twenty second s Judicial District Court Docket 99 CR676439 to possession of Xanax alprazolam 2 not however ask Griffin to return the counterfeit check to him defendant to give her a second but the defendant refused Griffin asked the She returned the s s defendant driver license to him and he left as fast as he possibly could Approximately five to ten minutes passed between the time the defendant presented the counterfeit check for payment and the time he demanded the return of his driver license s and stormed out of Quick Cash Byron Daniels a representative of American Express Security Division also testified at trial He indicated that the counterfeit check was a good quality printing He noted however that the serial number on the counterfeit check was valid only for a 100 00 scheck He also noted that Travelers was spelled with two I s in the middle of traveler the check but with one I elsewhere on the check He indicated that when someone purchases traveler checks they are instructed to endorse the check with their name on s the upper lefthand side When the person uses the check they are supposed to write the payee name on the middle of the check and then countersign the bottom The s counterfeit check was signed by the defendant on the top and the middle of the check SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues there was insufficient evidence of his intent to deceive another person because he voluntarily submitted his identification information the counterfeit traveler check was of good quality and he s believed the check was legitimate He concedes that the evidence was sufficient to prove the other elements of the offense 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 sidentity as the perpetrator of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt defendant In conducting this review we also must be expressly mindful of Louisiana circumstantial s evidence test which states in part assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded State v Wright 980601 p 2 La App 1 Cir 2730 So 485 486 writs denied 990802 La 99 19 2d 3 99 29 10 748 So 1157 2000 0895 La 11 773 So 732 quoting La R 2d 00 17 2d S 438 15 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 of the crime Wright 980601 at 3 730 So at 487 2d Louisiana Revised Statutes 14 pertinent part provides 2in 72 a counterfeit Whoever makes issues possesses monetary instrument of an organization with intent to deceive another person shall be fined not more than one million dollars but not less than five thousand dollars and imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than ten years but not less than six months or both A C For purposes of this Section 1 Counterfeit means a document or writing that purports to be genuine but is not because it has been falsely made manufactured or composed 3 Monetary instrument means a A scheck traveler 4 Organization means a legal entity other than a government established or organized for any purpose and includes a corporation or company 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 monetary instrument abuse and the defendant identity as the perpetrator of that offense s The jury heard but rejected the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defense i the defendant did e M not know that the check was counterfeit and he had no intent to deceive Griffin When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defense that hypothesis falls and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis that raises a reasonable doubt State v Moten 510 2d So 55 61 La App 1 Cir writ denied 514 So 126 La 1987 2d No such hypothesis exists in the instant case Further in reviewing the evidence we cannot say that the jury determination was irrational under the facts and circumstances presented s to them See State v Ordodi 20060207 p 14 La 11 946 So 654 662 06 29 2d An appellate court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that 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 20072306 pp 1 2 La 1 1 So 417 418 per curiam 09 21 3d This assignment of error is without merit REVIEW FOR ERROR Our review for error is pursuant to La Code Crim P art 920 which provides that the only matters to be considered on appeal are errors designated in the assignments of error and error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence La Code Crim P art 920 2 The trial court failed to impose the mandatory fine of not less than five thousand dollars nor more than one million dollars See La R 14 Although the failure S 72 A 2 to impose the fine is error under Article 920 it certainly is not inherently prejudicial to 2 the defendant Because the trial court failure to impose the fine was not raised by the s State in either the trial court or on appeal we are not required to take any action As such we decline to correct the illegally lenient sentence See State v Price 20052514 pp 1822 La App 1 Cir 12 952 So 112 123 25 en banc writ denied 06 28 2d 20070130 La 2 976 So 1277 08 22 2d CONVICTION HABITUAL OFFENDER AFFIRMED 5 ADJUDICATION AND SENTENCE
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.
