State Of Louisiana VS Gary Wayne Slaydon, Jr.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 KA 0004 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS GARY WAYNE SLAYDON JR Judgment rendered K k F MAY 7 2010 On Appeal from the 22d Judicial District Court Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Docket No 440995 Section I i The Honorable Reginald T Badeaux Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Counsel for Appellee District Attorney Covington La State of Louisiana Kathryn W Landry Attorney for the State Baton Rouge La Lieu T Vo Clark Counsel for Appellant Slidell La Gary Wayne Slaydon Jr BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ DOWNING J The defendant Gary Wayne Slaydon Jr was charged by bill of information with aggravated burglary Count 1 a violation of La R 14 armed robbery S 60 Count 2 a violation of La R 14 and attempted second degree murder Count S 64 3 a violation of La R 14 and 14 He pleaded not guilty to the charges S 27 1 30 Following a jury trial the defendant was found guilty as charged on all three counts The defendant filed motions for new trial and postverdict judgment of acquittal which were denied A multiple offender bill of information was subsequently filed For each of his three convictions the defendant was sentenced to twenty years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence with the sentences to run concurrently At the habitual offender hearing the defendant was adjudicated a third felony habitual offender on all three convictions The trial court vacated the three previous twenty year sentences and sentenced the defendant to twentyfive years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence on the aggravated burglary conviction sixty seven years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence on the armed robbery conviction and thirtyfour years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence on the attempted second degree murder conviction The sentences were ordered to run concurrently The defendant now appeals designating three assignments of error adjudications We affirm the convictions and habitual offender We affirm the armed robbery sentence Count 2 and the attempted second degree murder sentence Count 3 Finally we vacate the aggravated burglary sentence and remand for resentencing FACTS On November 17 2007 two men entered Luther Hickman shome probably sometime around midnight while Luther was sleeping Luther lived in an area off Louisiana Highway 433 at the Rigolets in Slidell 2 s Luther house and the houses nearby were built on pilings and flanked a bayou which leads to the mouth of Lake Pontchartrain As Luther slept in his upstairs bedroom the two men began beating him with tree branches When Luther awoke they continued to beat him mostly on his head and demanded that Luther give them his wallet or they would kill him Luther identified his two assailants as the defendant and Paul At trial Gafford The defendant who was also known as Fuzzy was living at the house of John Fabacher who lived two houses down from Luther The defendant told Luther he had a gun Luther told them that his money was downstairs Luther actually did not have money downstairs but lied to gain a reprieve from the beatings The assailants dragged Luther downstairs Luther lied again and told them his wallet was in his fifthwheel trailer outside The defendant left Gafford with Luther and headed toward Luther trailer s Gafford held Luther at bay with his tree branch and told Luther they would kill him if he did not give them the money At that moment Luther ran and dove into the bayou He swam the length of several houses When he got out of the water he ran to the house of his neighbors Earnest Pilgreen and his wife Jeanie who lived three houses down from Luther Earnest and Jeanie found Luther at their door bleeding profusely They rendered aid and Jeanie called 911 Deputy Ed Vautier of the St Tammany Parish Sheriff s Office testified at trial that he was dispatched to the scene and found Luther brutally injured Deputy Vautier the names of his assailants Luther gave He told the deputy that one of the persons who beat him was Fuzzy Shortly thereafter Gafford was detained Deputy Vautier along with other deputies entered Fabacher house to find the defendant s There were about twenty people inside the house Unable to find the defendant Deputy Vautier had Fabacher house emptied of all the male occupants s After speaking with the males outside Deputy Vautier suspected the defendant was still inside the house Deputy Vautier decided to check the attic He found the defendant 3 lying down in the attic between two air conditioning vents The defendant was apprehended Luther testified at trial that about a week before the night he was attacked he went fishing with Fabacher Gafford When they returned from fishing Luther encountered Gafford was upset with Luther over a girl Gafford was dating and whom Luther had dated in the past Gafford and Luther exchanged words and began fighting The defendant broke up the fight Luther considered the matter ended Luther also testified about the injuries he sustained from the beatings by the defendant and Gafford Luther suffered a broken arm and a broken jaw in two places His jaw was wired shut and he did not eat for two months losing forty pounds At the time of trial he had plastic plates in the bottom of his face He received stitches for injuries to his leg chin and head Also another part of his head required staples Luther further testified that when he returned home from the hospital the day after being attacked Fabacher approached him and gave him his Luther keys and s debit card Anthony Roullier also approached Luther and gave him his Luther s ring and chain which Luther kept in a stand next to the bed where he slept Luther kept the debit card in a metal can which sat atop the stand next to his bed Fabacher and Roullier told Luther the defendant had taken his property Luther also noticed on his return home from the hospital that the defendant and Gafford had gone through several parts of his house Luther admitted that the defendant and Gafford ransacked Luther also admitted that he had three his house while he was still sleeping marijuana convictions mostly when he was younger Fabacher testified at trial that after Luther went to the hospital and the defendant and Gafford had been arrested Fabacher noticed Luther keys in the lap of s Amber his stepdaughter and the defendant girlfriend Fabacher also saw a wallet s which he thought was Luther The wallet actually belonged to the defendant but s I3 s Luther debit card was in the defendant wallet s Fabacher took the debit card and the keys and returned them to Luther The defendant testified at trial He denied any involvement in the attack on Luther He stated that he did not go inside or break into Luther house and he did s not hit Luther He testified that Luther and Gafford had an altercation seven to ten days before Luther was attacked in his home According to the defendant Luther and Gafford had also been in a fight earlier the same night that Luther was attacked That night Gafford called the defendant looking for some marijuana The defendant told Gafford to come over According to the defendant he had been purchasing marijuana from Luther for the past two months Sometime after 11 p Gafford 00 m drove up but did not enter the defendant Fabacher house s s Someone in the shouse told the defendant that Gafford was outside fighting with Luther defendant The defendant broke up the fight and told Gafford to leave Luther who was bleeding either from his nose or mouth went home The defendant went back inside After about fifteen minutes when the defendant had not heard Gafford start up his car the defendant went back outside He did not see Gafford Thinking that Gafford went to Luther house the defendant began running in that direction s As the defendant passed his first neighbor house he saw Gafford leaving Luther s s driveway covered in blood Gafford told the defendant that Luther was in the bayou The defendant went back inside and told Amber what happened The police had already begun to arrive and the defendant hid in the attic because he did not want to go to jail for a parole violation or for having anything to do with what had happened The defendant had a prior conviction for escape and a prior conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 1 2 and 3 In these three assignments of error the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions Specifically the defendant contends the State 5 did not prove the elements of the armed robbery because the things of value were taken prior to the use of force or intimidation upon Luther The defendant further contends that his identity as one of the perpetrators was not established at trial Aside from the identification issue the defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the aggravated burglary conviction or the attempted second degree murder conviction A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand as it violates due process See U Const amend XIV La Const art I S 2 The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether or not viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt Jackson v Virginia 443 U 307 319 99 S 2781 2789 61 L 560 1979 S Ct 2d Ed See La C art 821 State v Ordodi 06 0207 p 10 La 11 946 P Cr B 06 29 2d So 654 660 State v Mussall 523 So 1305 1308 09 La 1988 The Jackson 2d standard of review incorporated in Article 821 is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence both direct and circumstantial for reasonable doubt When analyzing circumstantial evidence La R 15 provides that the factfinder must S 438 be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence See State v Patorno 01 2585 pp 45 La App 1st Cir 6 822 So 141 02 21 2d 144 Furthermore when the key issue is the defendant sidentity as the perpetrator rather than whether the crime was committed the State is required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification witness is sufficient to support a conviction Positive identification by only one It is the factfinder who weighs the respective credibility of the witnesses and this court will generally not secondguess 9 In his first assi of error the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction The defendant tiled a motion for a new trial which was denied In his second assignment of error the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial The defendants appeal addresses the sufficiency of the evidence Sufficiency is properly raised by a inotion for post verdict judgment of acquittal not by a motion for new trial Under La C Part 851 Cr 1the trial court can consider only the weight oft he evidence not the sufficiency See State N Williams 458 So 1315 1324 La App I st Cir 1984 w denied 463 So 1317 La 1985 We find no abuse of 2d rit 2d discretion in the instant matter of the trial court denial of the defendant motion for new trial In his third assignment s s of error the defendant argucs the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment not withstanding sic the verdict The proper motion which was in tact filed was a motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal See t a P CCr art 821 M those determinations See State v Hughes 05 0992 pp 5 6 La 11 943 06 29 2d So 1047 1051 La R 14 S 64 Aprovides Armed robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another by use of force or intimidation while armed with a dangerous weapon Regarding the identity issue the defendant contends that Luther identification s of him as one of the perpetrators is unreliable because of the injuries Luther suffered including blows to the head and face The defendant suggests that the small amount of blood found on his defendant sjeans was due to the defendant breaking up a s bloody fight between Luther and Gafford earlier that same night that Luther was attacked Gafford on the other hand had Luther blood on both of his hands and his s clothes It is the blood evidence according to the defendant that suggests Gafford was responsible for the vicious attack Also when Gafford gave a statement to the police after his arrest Gafford did not implicate the defendant Luther testified at trial that about a week before the night he was attacked he and Gafford got in a small fight After that Luther did not see Gafford again until a week later when Gafford was in his room with the defendant beating him Fabacher testified at trial that a week to ten days before the incident Luther and Gafford had gotten into a fight From the time ofthat fight until the instant offenses Fabacher had not seen any further fighting between Luther and Gafford Luther also testified that when he got to the house of his neighbors the Pilgreens and he told them that Paul s and Fuzzy tried to rob and kill him Earnest Pilgreen testified that when Luther came to his house for help Luther told him that Fuzzy and Paul had beaten him with a ball bat and a stick Jeanie Pilgreen testified at trial that Luther told her that Fuzzy and Paul had beat him up Luther testified at trial that Fuzzy and Paul were the two people in his house that beat him Luther further identified the defendant in court as one of the perpetrators 7 Ten days after the incident Luther identified the defendant and Gafford in police photographic lineups as the two men who attacked him in his home Regarding the photographic lineups the prosecutor asked Luther Were you positive in your identification of both Gary Slaydon who you knew as Fuzzy as well as Paul Gafford Were you positive Luther responded Positive Man there never was no if and or butts sic or anything about who it was They didn thave no mask on They didn try to disguise themselves you know I mean it was them R p 358 t DNA evidence was introduced at trial The blood found on the tree branches used to beat Luther was consistent with Luther DNA The handles those parts that s had less blood of the tree branches were tested for contact not blood DNA On one of the branch handles there was only a partial profile consistent with Luther DNA s On the other branch handle there was too much of Luther blood on it Therefore s any effort to get contact DNA free and separate from Luther blood was not s successful The defendant blue jeans that he was wearing the night Luther was s attacked had bloodstains on them Five samples of blood from the defendant blue s jeans were tested Four of those samples tested were consistent with the DNA profile of Luther Hickman The fifth sample which had significantly less DNA in it than the other four samples was a partial profile consistent with the DNA of the defendant In finding the defendant guilty it is clear the jury rejected the defendant s theory of misidentification The trier of fact is free to 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 The trier of fact determination of the weight to be given evidence is not s subject to appellate review An appellate court will not reweigh the evidence to overturn a factfinder determination of guilt State v Taylor 97 2261 pp 5 6 La s App 1 st Cir 9 721 So 929 932 We are constitutionally precluded from 98 25 2d 0 acting as a thirteenth juror in assessing what weight to give evidence in criminal cases See State v Mitchell 99 3342 p 8 La 10 772 So 78 83 The 00 17 2d fact that the record contains evidence which conflicts with the testimony accepted by a trier of fact does not render the evidence accepted by the trier of fact insufficient State v Quinn 479 So 592 596 La App 1st Cir 1985 2d Luther identified the defendant to his neighbors to Deputy Vautier at trial and in a police photographic lineup Luther testimony coupled with the DNA evidence s clearly established the identity of the defendant as one of the perpetrators who entered his home beat him with a tree branch threatened to kill him if he did not give him money and took Luther ring chain keys and debit card s We note that when the police arrived at Fabacher house the defendant hid in s the attic from the police Flight following an offense reasonably raises the inference of a guilty mind State v Captville 448 So 676 680 n La 1984 2d 4 The defendant sother argument in these assignments of error is that the record is devoid of any evidence that anything of value was taken from Luther sperson or from his immediate control through the use of force or intimidation while the offender was armed with a dangerous weapon Specifically the defendant contends that the force must occur prior to the taking for there to be an armed robbery According to the defendant if there was a taking of anything of value by the two men the taking was while Luther was sleeping and prior to him being beaten Since the force the beating that occurred after any alleged taking the defendant argues that there is no evidence to support the armed robbery conviction The use of force or intimidation contemporaneous with the taking does not have to occur before or The force or intimidation element of robbery is satisfied by evidence that force or intimidation directly related to the taking occurred in the course of completing the crime State v Meyers 620 So 1160 116263 2d La 1993 7 Luther was awakened by the defendant and Gafford beating him with tree branches demanding that he give them his wallet or they would kill him Instead of money the defendant and Gafford took Luther skeys ring chain and debit card At what particular object the force or intimidation may have been originally directed is irrelevant Thus despite the defendant and Gafford not finding what they were apparently looking for Luther money they nevertheless took items of value s belonging to Luther by use of force or intimidation while armed with tree branches It is not clear from the record when Luther ring chain debit card and keys were s taken before or after Luther was awakened It is probable however that since three ofthe items taken were right next to where Luther was sleeping they were taken after Luther was awakened In any event even if the defendant or Gafford took Luther sproperty before Luther was awakened the defendant still committed an armed robbery A rational juror could have reasonably concluded that property taken by the defendant or Gafford was in the immediate control of Luther See State v Baldwin 388 So 2d 664 677 La 1980 cert denied 449 U 1103 101 S 901 66 L 830 S Ct 2d Ed 1981 See also State v Cooks 97 0999 p 28 La 9 720 So 637 652 98 2d cert denied 526 U 1042 119 S 1342 143 L 505 1999 armed robbery S Ct 2d Ed may occur where property taken is not in actual contact with the victim Further a rational juror could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used force or intimidation by beating Luther initially to take his money and then to retain possession of Luther property and to effect an escape from the scene This s force or intimidation was directed at the victim ofthe taking at the place of the taking and immediately after the taking of the property and a rational juror could have concluded that the force or intimidation occurred in the course of the defendant s Whether defendant physically engaged in the actual taking of Luther property as opposed to directing a confederate s to do so is not important The evidence clearly revealed his participation in the crime as a principal La R 14 S 24 See State v Boelyn 432 So 260 262 n La 1983 2d 2 10 committing a robbery See Meyers 620 So at 1163 The State proved beyond a 2d reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an armed robbery After a thorough review of the record we find that the evidence supports the guilty verdicts We find also that the evidence negates any reasonable probability of misidentification We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence that the defendant was guilty of aggravated burglary armed robbery and attempted second degree murder These assignments of error are without merit SENTENCING ERROR Under La C art 920 which limits our review to errors discoverable P Cr 2 by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the evidence we have discovered a sentencing error In sentencing the defendant the trial court indicated that the sentences for all three convictions were to be served without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence The sentence for an aggravated burglary conviction contains no parole prohibition See La R 14 S 60 Thus the denial of parole eligibility on the defendant third felony habitual offender s sentence for the aggravated burglary conviction is unlawful It is not sufficient to merely remove the illegal condition since the twentyyear to sixtyyear sentencing range involves discretion See La R 15 Accordingly this S 529 i b A 1 sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court for resentencing on the aggravated burglary conviction Count 1 DECREE For the foregoing reasons we affirm convictions and habitual offender adjudications affirm the armed robbery sentence count 2 and the attempted second The minutes reflect the sentences are to be served without benetit of probation or suspension of sentence R p 34 When there is a discrepancy between the minutes and the transcript the transcript prevails State v Lynch 441 So 2d 732 734 La 1983 11 degree murder sentence count 3 vacate aggravated burglary sentence count 1 and remand for resentencing on the aggravated burglary conviction CONVICTIONS AND ARMED HABITUAL ADJUDICATIONS AND COUNT 2 ATTEMPTED SECOND DEGREE MURDER SENTENCE COUNT 3 AGGRAVATED BURGLARY SENTENCE AFFIRMED COUNT 1 AFFIRMED VACATED ROBBERY OFFENDER REMANDED FOR SENTENCE RESENTENCING BURGLARY CONVICTION 12 ON AGGRAVATED

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.