State Of Louisiana VS Bobby Dewayne Kimble
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 KA 1559 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS BOBBY DEWAYNE KIMBLE DATE OF JUDGMENT MAR 2 5 2011 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 06060190 SEC 2 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE RICHARD D ANDERSON JUDGE Hillar C Moore III Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee District Attorney Dylan C Alge Baton Rouge Louisiana State of Louisiana Frank Sloan Counsel for Defendant Appellant Bobby Dewayne Kimble Mandeville Louisiana BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ Disposition CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED KUHN I Defendant Bobby Dewayne Kimble and codefendant Richard Stewart were charged by bill of information with second degree kidnapping a violation of La R 14 count one aggravated burglary a violation of La R 14 S 44 1 S 60 count two and armed robbery a violation of La R 14 count three S 64 Defendant pled not guilty to all charges Prior to trial the State amended the bill of information to dismiss count one as to defendant only defendant filed a pro se motion to act as cocounsel On April 20 2007 The trial court denied the motion without a hearing Defendant was tried by a jury and convicted as charged on counts two and three For his conviction of aggravated burglary defendant was sentenced to thirty years at hard labor For his conviction of armed robbery defendant was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for fifty years without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence The trial court ordered that the sentences run concurrently Defendant now appeals urging the following assignments of error by counseled and pro se briefs Counseled Assi nment of Error 1 The trial court erred in refusing to permit the defendant to represent himself at trial 1 Stewart was also charged with aggravated obstruction of a highway of commerce a violation of La R 14 count four S 96 2 Defendant filed a motion to sever his case from that of codefendant Stewart On January 13 2009 the trial court granted the motion Defendant was tried separately Information contained in defendant PSI report reflects that Stewart pled guilty to aggravated obstruction of a highway s second degree kidnapping aggravated burglary and armed robbery He was sentenced to fifteen years for aggravated obstruction of a highway seventeen years two years without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence for second degree kidnapping seventeen years for aggravated burglary and seventeen years without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence for armed robbery 2 Pro Se Assignments of Error 1 Whether the sentences imposed violate the state and federal constitutions which prohibit the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment due to their excessiveness 2 Whether the outofcourt photographic identification procedure was suggestive and thus violated the defendant due process rights and tainted the s incourt identification We affirm defendant convictions and sentences s FACTS On April 17 2006 Kevin Manns was at his home in the Crillion Apartments in Baton Rouge preparing for his work day At approximately 8 a as Manns 00 m was entering the shower he heard his doorbell ring Since he believed that it was the water delivery man calling Manns decided to proceed with his shower with the understanding that the delivery man would simply return later Moments later Manns heard a loud noise He exited the shower wrapped a towel around himself and went to investigate Manns observed an unfamiliar black male inside his residence rummaging through his mail Manns confronted the individual asked him what he was doing inside his home and demanded that he leave raised a long screwdriver towards Manns in a threatening manner The man A younger black male also approached Manns from behind and placed an object toward his back The perpetrators ordered Manns to the front of the apartment where the older perpetrator instructed Manns to lie face down The older perpetrator stood over Manns while the younger perpetrator went through the house gathering some of Manns personal belongings in a box s Later when the older perpetrator suggested that they should leave the residence the younger perpetrator indicated 3 that Manns was going with them The younger perpetrator forced Manns to carry the box containing his personal belongings out of the residence As the group walked towards Manns vehicle the younger perpetrator who was walking s directly behind Manns stated Don make me shoot you He then asked Manns t how to unlock the vehicle Manns told him he would need to go around to the s driver side of the vehicle to manually unlock the vehicle perpetrator went around the vehicle Manns fled As the younger He ran into the street and flagged down a passerby Meanwhile Manns observed the older perpetrator drive away in a silver sports utility vehicle and the younger one in Manns vehicle s Shortly thereafter Officer Laura Mays of the Baton Rouge Police Department arrived at the Crillion Apartments to investigate After speaking with the victim and other witnesses Officer Mays contacted dispatch with a description of the vehicles Approximately thirty minutes later a gray sports utility vehicle with the same license plate number as the one the perpetrator left Manns s apartment in was observed on Florida Boulevard A chase ensued when the officers attempted to stop the vehicle The vehicle was eventually stopped and Stewart was determined to be the driver Stewart was returned to the scene where Manns identified him as the younger perpetrator who participated in the burglary and robbery Manns also identified a gold chain that Stewart was wearing as his personal property Stewart eventually named defendant as the older individual who accompanied him at Manns apartment s 4 COUNSELED ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In his sole counseled assignment of error defendant contends the trial court erred in summarily denying his request to act as cocounsel without a hearing He maintains that the trial court was required to conduct a hearing to determine whether he understood the risks associated with self representation and whether he was competent to act as his own counsel A defendant right to the assistance of counsel is guaranteed by both our s state and federal constitutions See U Const amends VI S 1 XIV La Const art 13 State v Brooks 452 So 149 155 La 1984 on rehearing citing 2d Gideon v Wainwright 372 U 335 83 S 792 9 L 799 1963 S Ct 2d Ed Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 511 also provides for a defendant s right to counsel as follows The accused in every instance has the right to defend himself and to have the assistance of counsel His counsel shall have free access to him in private at reasonable hours The federal constitution further grants an accused the right of selfrepresentation Faretta v California 422 U 806 807 S 95 S 2525 2527 45 L 562 1975 State v Penson 630 So 274 277 Ct 2d Ed 2d La App 1st Cir 1993 An accused has the right to choose between the right to counsel and the right to self State a Bridgewater 2000 1529 p representation 17 La 1 823 So 877 894 cert denied 537 U 1 123 S 1266 02 15 2d S 227 Ct 154 2d Ed L 1089 2003 A defendant who exercises the right of self representation must knowingly and intelligently waive the right to counsel State v Penson 630 So at 277 When a defendant requests the right to represent 2d himself his technical legal knowledge is not relevant in determining if he is knowingly exercising the right to defend himself A trial judge confronted with an 5 s accused unequivocal request to represent himself need determine only if the accused is competent to waive counsel and is voluntarily exercising his informed free will State v Santos 991897 pp 2 3 La 9 770 So 319 321 per 00 15 2d curiam quoting Faretta 422 U at 835 95 S at 2541 S Ct In the instant case the record reflects that the trial court appointed the Office of the Public Defender to represent defendant at his June 14 2006 s arraignment Defendant was represented by counsel from the Public Defender Office at every court appearance thereafter On April 20 2007 defendant filed a pro se motion requesting that he be allowed to act as cocounsel at his trial In the motion he asserted Under the provision of La C Article 511 he is entitled P Cr to defend himself and to have the assistance of counsel On April 24 2007 the trial court denied the motion without a hearing The court noted on the written motion that defendant is represented by counsel Defendant did not reurge the motion to act as cocounsel at any point during the trial While a defendant has the right to counsel as well as the right to self representation representative he has no constitutional right to be both represented and State v Bodley 394 So 584 593 La 1981 see also 2d McKaskle v Wiggins 465 U 168 183 104 S 944 953 79 L 122 S Ct 2d Ed 1984 Faretta does not require a trial judge to permit hybrid representation of the type petitioner was actually allowed Under a hybrid form of representation the defendant and counsel act as cocounsel with each speaking for the defense during different phases of the trial See Wayne R LaFave Criminal Procedure g 5 11 p 765 3d ed 2007 R Although a trial court is not prohibited from using hybrid arrangements such arrangements present inherent difficulties If the defendant has not waived the right to counsel and the attorney provides only partial representation the issue of whether the accused was afforded adequate legal representation might be raised If the accused has adequately waived his right to counsel but counsel actively participates in the defense questions of violation of the accused right to self s representation might result See State v Dupre 500 So 873 878 La App 1st 2d Cir 1986 writ denied 505 So 55 La 1987 These hybrid representation 2d issues arise when the arrangement allowed by the trial court falls somewhere between counsel providing the entire legal defense and the defendant acting as his only legal representative After our review of the record in this case we find no error in the trial s court denial of defendant motion to act as cocounsel in this case Defendant s s request to represent himself was not a clear and unequivocal assertion of the right to self representation Defendant did not unequivocally indicate to the trial court that he wanted to represent himself in this prosecution without the assistance of any counsel Instead he requested to be allowed to act as cocounsel in conjunction with his court appointed attorney As previously noted an accused has the right to choose between the right to counsel and the right to self representation Furthermore defendant has not alleged and we have not found any way in which his defense was prejudiced because he did not participate as co counsel Therefore the trial court did not err in denying defendant the right to act as cocounsel under the facts and circumstances of this case This assignment of error lacks merit 7 PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 EXCESSIVE SENTENCES In his first pro se assignment of error defendant contends the trial court erred in excessive imposing unconstitutionally sentences He asserts the maximum sentence for aggravated burglary and the fiftyyear sentence for armed robbery constitute needless infliction of pain and suffering under the facts and circumstances of this case Article 1 Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits the imposition of excessive punishment A sentence is unconstitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense or is nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering State v Dorthey 623 2d So 1276 1280 La 1993 A sentence is grossly disproportionate if when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the harm done to society it shocks the sense of justice State v Hogan 480 So 288 291 La 1985 2d Although a sentence may be within statutory limits it may violate a defendant s constitutional right against excessive punishment and is subject to appellate review State v Sepulvado 367 So 762 767 La 1979 State v Lanieu 98 2d 1260 p 12 La App 1st Cir 4 734 So 89 97 writ denied 991259 La 99 1 2d 99 8 10 750 So 962 However a trial court is given wide discretion in the 2d imposition of sentences within statutory limits and the sentence imposed by it should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion State v Lobato 603 So 739 751 La 1992 2d Maximum sentences are generally reserved for the most serious violations of the relevant statute and for the 8 worst type of offenders State v Mance 20001903 p 4 La App 1 st Cir 1101 511 797 So 718 721 2d A trial court reasons for imposing sentence as required by La C art s P Cr 1 894 are an important aid to this court when reviewing a sentence alleged to be excessive State v McKnight 98 1790 p 25 La App 1st Cir 6 739 99 25 2d So 343 359 writ denied 992226 La 2 755 So 247 Remand for 00 25 2d full compliance with Article 894 is unnecessary when a sufficient factual basis 1 for the sentence is shown State v Lanclos 419 So 475 478 La 1982 2d As previously noted defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary and armed robbery A conviction of aggravated burglary carries a potential penalty of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than one year nor more than thirty years La R 14 Defendant received the maximum sentence for this offense S 60 The penalty for armed robbery is imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence for not less than ten and not more than ninetynine years La S R B 64 14 Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for fifty years without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence Defendant asserts he should have received lesser sentences in this case While he seems to concede that a term of imprisonment is warranted defendant suggests that his age his lack of any juvenile criminal history and his minor felony convictions as an adult which he claims do not include any crimes of violence do not support the imposition of the lengthy sentences At the sentencing hearing prior to imposing the sentence the trial court indicated that it received and reviewed a presentence investigation report PSI V containing information on defendant personal and criminal history s The trial court noted that defendant was fiftyone years old and classified as a fifth felony offender history The court then reviewed the details of defendant extensive criminal s which included convictions dating back to 1980 and numerous unsatisfactory probation andor parole periods At the time of the commission of the instant offenses defendant was on parole supervision Defendant was arrested on January 23 2003 on charges of simple burglary battery of a police officer and resisting an officer On May 12 2003 defendant was convicted of simple burglary and sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for six years Defendant was released on parole supervision on January 24 2006 Less than three months after his release from prison defendant was arrested for committing the instant offenses of aggravated burglary and armed robbery Considering defendant s lengthy criminal history and his unsatisfactory performance while on probation andor parole the PSI concluded defendant is a career criminal and recommended imposition of sentences of imprisonment at the upper end of the The PSI further recommended that the maximum penalty on each conviction sentences be ordered to be served consecutively After reviewing defendant entire criminal history during the sentencing s hearing the trial court concluded defendant was in need of correctional treatment in a custodial environment The court stated Prisons are made for people who t can follow the law like this Despite the PSI recommendation of maximum or s near maximum consecutive sentences the court imposed a midrange sentence on the armed robbery conviction and ordered that the sentences run concurrently 10 We have reviewed the sentences imposed by the trial court and do not find either sentence to be excessive under the facts and circumstances of this case Considering the circumstances of the offenses and defendant extensive criminal s record we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in imposing the sentences upon defendant The thirtyyear maximum sentence for aggravated burglary and the midrange fiftyyear sentence for armed robbery are clearly supported by the record The sentences are neither grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses nor so disproportionate as to shock our sense of justice This defendant who has repeatedly shown absolutely no regard for the law and has committed similar offenses is the worst type of criminal offender and poses an unusual risk to public safety Therefore considering the violent nature of these offenses coupled with defendant propensity to continue criminal activity and his failure to s respond to past rehabilitation efforts we conclude that the sentences imposed herein including the maximum aggravated burglary sentence are not unconstitutionally excessive This assignment of error lacks merit PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 2 DENIAL OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION In this assignment of error defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the victim pretrial identification s Defendant asserts that because he was obviously older than the other individuals contained in the photographic array the identification procedure was unduly suggestive and resulted in a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification When a trial court denies a motion to suppress factual and credibility determinations should not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial 11 s court discretion i unless such ruling is not supported by the evidence e See State v Green 94 0887 p 11 La 5 655 So 272 281 However a 95 22 2d trial court legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review See State v s Hunt 2009 1589 p 6 La 12 25 So 746 75L 09 1 3d A defendant attempting to suppress an identification must prove both that the identification itself was suggestive and that there was a likelihood of misidentification as a result of the identification procedure State v Prudholm P Cr D 446 So 729 738 La 1984 See La C art 703 2d An identification procedure is unduly suggestive if during the procedure a witness attention is s focused on the defendant State a Hawkins 572 So 108 112 La App 1 st Cir 2d For example distinguishing marks on the photographs may single out 1990 defendant State a Guillot 353 So 1005 1008 La 1977 writ denied 367 2d 2d So 864 La 1979 However even should the identification be considered suggestive this alone does not indicate a violation of the defendant right to due s process It is the likelihood of misidentification that violates due process not merely the suggestive identification procedure See State a Jones 941098 p 6 95 23 2d La App 1st Cir 6 658 So 307 311 writ denied 95 2280 La 96 12 1 666 So 320 2d A trial court determination of the admissibility of s identification evidence is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion State v Reed 970812 p 5 La App 1st Cir 4 712 So 572 576 writ denied 981266 La 11 98 8 2d 98 25 729 So 572 2d In determining whether a photographic identification was reliable the factors to be considered are 1 the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal 12 at the moment of the crime 2 the degree of attention of the witness 3 the accuracy of the prior description of the criminal 4 the level of certainty of the identification and 5 the elapsed time between the crime and the confrontation Manson v Brathwafte 432 U 98 114 97 S 2243 2253 53 L 140 S Ct 2d Ed 1977 In this case we have thoroughly reviewed the record to evaluate the identification in dispute The record evidence does not indicate that the photographic identification procedure was unduly suggestive At the hearing on the motion to suppress Detective Larry Walters Jr of the Baton Rouge Police Department testified that after Stewart was apprehended he was returned to the scene where he was positively identified by the victim as a participant in the offenses Stewart identified defendant by name as the older individual who assisted him in burglarizing Manns residence and robbing him Upon receiving s this information Detective Walters was able to locate his previous booking photograph Based upon the physical characteristics shown in defendant s photograph Detective Walters then requested and the computer generated a six person photographic lineup of individuals with similar features According to Detective Walters the computer also arranged the photographs in random order Once the lineup was prepared it was shown to Stewart who identified the s defendant photograph as that of the individual he identified as his accomplice A separate copy of the line up was then presented to Manns Manns quickly identified defendant as the older perpetrator We have reviewed the photographic lineup and find the photographs used depict individuals with sufficient resemblance of characteristics e hair length g 13 facial hair skin color and complexion build and facial features such as chin nose etc to reasonably test identification Thus there does not appear to be any error in the trial court ruling and therefore we find no merit to this assignment of s llip l Even assuming the photo lineup identification were suggestive there was not a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification At the trial Manns testified that his identification of defendant was based upon his recollection of the events that transpired at his residence Manns testimony confirms that during s the commission of the offenses the victim had ample opportunity to view the older perpetrator face There was no indication that the older perpetrator wore a s mask or otherwise attempted to conceal his identity Manns indicated that the lighting inside the apartment was bright and he intentionally paid close attention to the physical characteristic of the perpetrators Most importantly codefendant Stewart identified defendant by name as his accomplice Therefore a review of the overall circumstances indicates the identification in this case was reliable therefore the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress DECREE For these reasons we affirm the convictions and sentences of defendant Bobby Dewayne Kimble CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED 14
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.
