State Of Louisiana VS Robin Jones
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 KA 0824 n l t STATE OF LOUISIANA w U veRSUs ROBIN JONES On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court Parish of Washington Louisiana Docket No 10 Division B 111242 CR5 Honorable August Hand Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Attorneys for Appellee District Attorney State of Louisiana Covington LA and Kathryn Landry Special Appeals Counsel Baton Rouge LA Frank Sloan Louisiana Appellate Project Mandeville LA Attorneyfor Appellant Defendant Robin ones BEFORE PARRO WELCH AND KLINE Judgment rendered B 1 9 2013 1 Judge William F Kline lr retired is serving as judge ro temoore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court PARRO The defendant Robin Jones was charged by bill of information with production and manufacture of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance CDS methamphetamine a violation of LSA 40 count 1 creation or S A R 967 1 operation of a clandestine laboratory a violation of LSA 40 count 2 and S R 983 possession of a Schedule II CDS methamphetamine a violation of LSA 40 SC R967 count 3 He initially entered a plea of not guilty and filed motions to suppress the evidence and his statement which the district court denied The defendant then moved to quash count 3 Following the district court grant of his motion to quash he s pled guilty to counts 1 and 2 pursuant to a plea agreement with the state reserving his right to appeal See State v Crosby 338 So 584 588 La 1976 According to 2d the plea agreement the state would bill the defendant as a habitual offender on count 2 only and the district court would sentence the defendant to ten years on count 1 and ten years on the habitual offender bill for count 2 both sentences to run concurrently The district court sentenced the defendant to ten years on each count and indicated count 1 was to be served without the benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence At this stage of the proceeding the state filed a multiple offender bill of information The defendant was then adjudicated a second habitual offender on felony count 2 and the district court vacated its previously sentence on that count imposed and resentenced the defendant to ten years at hard labor as a second habitual felony offender The defendanYs sentences were to be served concurrently The defendant now appeals arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement For the following reasons we affirm the defendanYs convictions habitual offender adjudication and sentences z The defendanYs brother Ian Jones was also charged by the same bill of information His charges were severed and he was tried separately He has filed a separate appeal with this court See State v ones 12 La App lst Cir 2 unpublished opinion 0825 13 19 3 See LSA 40 SB R 967 a 3 4 See LSA 15 and LSA 40 S1 R 529 A SC R983 2 I S FACy On October 15 2010 the defendant was riding in a car with his brother and co defendant Ian Jones and his brother girlfriend Peggy Temple Temple was driving s the vehicle and was involved in a motor vehicle accident After the accident Temple left the scene and drove to a lighted area of a nearby parking lot Sergeant Chad Dorset with the Franklinton Police Department responded to a call reporting a hit and arrived at the parking lot where the defendant was located run and shortly thereafter He conducted a plain view search of the vehicle and saw items consistent with a methamphetamine lab including coffee filters drain cleaner funnels and empty bottles Sergeant Dorset then searched the passenger compartment of the vehicle and found a Ziploc bag containing a clear liquid and white powder which he suspected to be methamphetamine and methamphetamine products The defendant his brother and Temple were placed under arrest and transported to the Franklinton Police Department where they each gave a statement MOTION TO SUPPRESS In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement According to the defendant the officer conducting his interview promised him that Temple would not be charged if he told what he knew On the trial of a motion to suppress the state has the burden of proving the admissibility of a purported confession or statement by the defendant LSA art P Cr C D 703 In addition to showing that the Miranda requirements were met the state must affirmatively show that the statement or confession was free and voluntary and not made under the influence of fear duress intimidation menaces threats inducements or promises in order to introduce into evidence a defendanYs statement or confession See State v Thomas 461 So 1253 1256 La App lst Cir 1984 2d writ denied 464 So 1375 La 1985 LSA 15 see also State v Hunt 09 2d S R 451 1589 La 12 25 So 746 754 The state must specifically rebut a defendant 09 1 3d s 5 Although the defendant alleges the search of the vehicle was warrantless he does not contest the district court sdenial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained in that search 3 I I specific allegations of police misconduct in eliciting a confession State v Thomas 461 So at 1256 2d The defendant contends that before he gave his statement the interviewing officer Sergeant Craig James led him to believe that if he gave a statement exonerating Temple it would result in her not being charged for the drug offenses that he and his brother were facing He argues that it would have been impossible for him to exonerate Temple without implicating himself At the hearing on the motion to suppress Sergeant James testified that he interviewed the defendant Prior to conducting the interview Sergeant James informed the defendant of his Miranda rights and the defendant signed a waiver form rights of After indicating to Sergeant James that he understood his rights the defendant gave a recorded statement Sergeant James testified that he did not threaten coerce or intimidate the defendant into giving the statement He also testified that he did not promise the defendant anything in exchange for giving the statement and that the defendant gave a statement of his own free will According to Sergeant James during his taped statement the defendant indicated that Temple had nothing to do with the charges for which he and his brother were arrested Sergeant James testified that he may have told the defendant that if Temple said the items recovered in the search were not hers and that if he and his brother also said the items did not belong to Temple then he would not charge her However he also testified that there was no deal offered that Temple would be released if the defendant gave a statement Before ruling on the motion to suppress the defendanYs statement the district court pointed out that the defendant was properly Mirandized and that he executed a waiver form indicating that he wished to give a voluntary statement According to the district court the statement given cleared Temple from wrongdoing but implicated the defendant and his brother in a much worse light However the court stated that the defendanYs statement was free and voluntary and that it heard no testimony indicating 6 The defendant did not testify to the contents of his statement at the hearing on the motion to suppress and his statement was not submitted into evidence It appears from the testimony offered and the district court comments at the hearing that the defendant s sstatement essentially consisted of him accepting responsibility for the contraband discovered and refuting any knowledge of it on Temple part s 4 that the statement was forced or coerced in any manner Before denying the motion to suppress the court further opined There were no according to Sergeant James there was no promise made that anything specific other than you know tell us what you know And if all facts clear Temple and she is not involved she won be t charged But no extra or promise or inducement was made in the Court s mind to taint the statements given by the defendant and co defendant relative to the matter The admissibility of a confession is in the first instance a question for the district court its conclusions on the credibility and weight of the testimony relating to the voluntary nature of the confession will not be overturned unless they are not supported by the evidence State v Sanford 569 So 147 150 La App ist Cir 2d 1990 writ denied 623 So 1299 La 1993 The district court must consider the 2d totality of the circumstances in deciding whether a confession is admissible Testimony of the interviewing officer alone may be sufficient to prove a defendant sstatements were freely and voluntarily given State v Maten 04 La App lst Cir 1718 05 24 3 899 So 711 721 writ denied 05 La 1 922 So 544 2d 1570 06 27 2d Further when a district court denies a motion to suppress factual and credibility determinations should not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of the district s court discretion i unless such ruling is not supported by the evidence e See State v Green 94 La 5655 So 272 280 As a general rule this court 0887 95 22 2d 81 reviews district court rulings under a deferential standard with regard to factual and other trial determinations while legal findings are subject to a de nouo standard of review State v Hunt 25 So at 751 3d After a careful review of the record we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress the defendant statement s The testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress and the waiver form clearly establish that the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights and that he executed a waiver of those rights Further the evidence indicates that the defendant knowingly and intentionally waived his rights Sergeant ames testimony at the hearing which s the district court found credible showed that the defendant appeared to understand his rights The district court also found credibie Sergeant James testimony that he did s 5 not coerce the defendant into implicating himself and exonerating Temple Although the defendant may have had a genuine concern for the welfare of his brother s girlfriend it is evident that he was in no way coerced into incriminating himself in order to exonerate Temple See State v Brown 504 So 1025 1031 La App lst Cir 2d writ denied 507 So 225 La 1987 2d The test for voluntariness of a confession requires a review of the totality of the circumstances under which the statement was given State v Maten 899 So at 721 We conclude as did the district court that 2d under a totality of the circumstances the defendanYs confession was voluntary Therefore the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress his statement This assignment of error is without merit CONVICTIONS HABITUAL OFFENDER SENTENCES AFFIRMED 6 AD7UDICATION AND
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.
