State Of Louisiana VS Lionel Royal
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT C 2012 KA 1387 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS LIONEL ROYAL Judgment Rendered MAR 2 2 2013 On Appeal from the Seventeenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Lafourche State of Louisiana No 487195 Honorable F Hugh Larose Judge Presiding Camiile A Morvant II Counsel Por Appellee District State of Louisiana Attorney Jennifer F Richard Joseph S Soignet Assistant District Attorneys Thibodaux Louisiana Margaret S Sollars Thibodaux Louisiana Counsel for Defendant Appellant Lionel Royaf BEFORE WHIPPLE C McCLENDON J AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ McCLENDON J Defendant Lionel Royal was charged by bill of information 487195 with one count of possession with intent to distribute oxycodone eount I and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine count II violations of LSA S 967 R 40 He initially entered a plea of not guilty and alleging his statement to the police was not free and voluntary and th search of his home was not based on reasonable suspicion he moved to suppress from use as evidence his inculpatory statement and the drugs seized from his home the motion to suppress was denied Following a hearing Thereafter the State nol docket prossed 487196 and bill 487195 count I Additionally pursuant to a plea bargain for an agreed sentence and the State agreement not to pursue habitual upon s offender proceedings against him defendant pled guilty to bill 487195 count II reserving his right to seek review of the court rulings on the motion to s suppress See State v Crosby 338 So 584 La 1976 In accordance with 2d the plea agreement on count II he was sentenced to six years at hard labor with the first two years of the sentence without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence Defendant now appeais arguing in his counseled brief that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress his statement He also files a pro se brief referencing the search of his person and his vehicle For the following reasons we affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS Due to defendanYs guilty plea to bill 487195 count II there was no trial and thus no trial testimony concerning the facts of that offense The State however set forth the following factual basis for defendanYs guilty plea n 0 or about June 29 2010 within the Parish of Lafourche that defendant was in possession of a controiled dangerous substance which is shown to be cocaine The State would also prove that defendant had the intent to distribute that substance in violation of the Controlled Dangerous Substance Law The record does not include information concerning the charges under this docket number 2 The defense agreed that all necessary eiemen of the offense to which s defendant had pled guilty were present MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT In counseled assignment of error number 1 defendant argues his statement was the product of coercion and thus the triai court erred in denying the motion to suppress the statement The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I 5 of the Louisiana Constitution protect persons against unreasonable searches and seizures A defendant adversely affected may move to suppress any evidence from use at the trial on the merits on the ground that it was unconstitutionally obtained LSA art 703A The State shall have the burden of proving the P Cr C admissibility of a purported confession or statement by a defendant or of any evidence seized without a warrant Part 703D It is well that Cr C LSA settled for a confession or inculpatory statement to be admissible into evidence the State must affirmatively show that it was freely and voluntarily given without influence of fear duress intimidation menaces threats inducements or promises S R LSA 451 15 Further the State must show that an accused who makes a statement or confession during custodial interrogation was first advised of his Miranda rights State v Plain 99 La 1 Cir 2752 So 337 342 1112 App 00 18 2d The admissibility of a confession is in the first instance a question for the trial court its conclusions on the credibility and weight of the testimony relating to the voluntary nature of the confess are accorded great weight and will not be on overturned unless they are not supported by the evidence Whether or not a showing of voluntariness has been made is analyzed on a case basis with by regard to the facts and circumstances of each case The trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether or not a confession is admissible Plain 752 So at 342 2d If the defendant alleges police misconduct in eliciting a confessior it is incumbent upon the State to rebut these allegations specifically Z Miranda v Arizona 384 U 436 86 S 1602 16 L 694 1966 S Ct 2d Ed 3 However a confession is not rendered inadmissinle by the fact law enforcement officers exhort or adjure a defendant to tell the truth provided the exhortation is not accompanied by an inducement in the nature of a threat or one which implies a promise of reward State v Lee 577 Soa2d 134 143 La 1 Cir writ denied 580 So App 2d 667 La 1991 When a trial court denies a motion to suppress factuai and credibility determinations should not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial s court discretion i unless such ruling is not supported by the evidence e See State v Green 94 La 5 655 So 272 280 However a trial 0887 95 22 2d 81 s court legal findings are subject to a de nouo standard of review See State v Hunt 09 La 12 25 So 746 751 1589 09 1 3d Prior to trial defendant moved to suppress from use as evidence his inculpatory statement and the drugs seized from his home arguing his statement to the police was not free and voluntary and that the search of his home was not based on reasonable suspicion Following a hearing the trial court denied the motion Louisiana Department of Corrections Office of Probation and Parole Officer Michael Collins testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress that he was involved in an investigation of defendant a parolee on June 29 2010 Officer Collins indicated that defendant supervisor Officer Ron Tillery had received s information in an anonymous telephone call that defendant and another person were dealing drugs out of the residence and that the drugs were right ne to the house The anonymous caller stated he knew the people dealing drugs and had personally witnessed the drug dealing Thereafter Officer Collins and police officers went to defendant residence in Cut Off Defendant was not home but s his mother his girlfriend Tamika Bourda and her two children were present Subsequently Officer Tillery telephoned defendant and instructed him to return home 3 Officer Collins testified the police officers were present for officer safety 4 I Following a search of the home Oxycontin and crack cocaine were discovered hidden inside the door of the hot water heater Thereafter defendant was informed of his Miranda rights waived those rights and was questioned by Louisiana State Police Trooper Craig Rhodes in the garage OfFicer Collins was also present during the questioning According to Officer Collins defendant did not indicate that he did not understand his rights Officer Collins also indicated Trooper Rhodes did not threaten defendant or promise him anything in exchange for his statement Trooper Rhodes testified that defendant wanted the police to promise him something Defendant did not want to go to jail Trooper Rhodes told defendant that if the information defendant provided was fruitful the district attorney s office would be notified of whatever cooperation defendant had provided Trooper Rhodes specifically denied promising defendant that he would not go to jail or that he would be allowed to stay with his family Trooper Rhodes also denied threatening or coercing defendant into giving a statement DefendanYs statement was recorded Trooper Rhodes told defendant I am not going free It don work that way Any cop that telis you that is just down right lying t to you to lie to you and tell you if you do A B C then you get out of jail If you want to start telling to try to help yourself out I ali ears m Defendant asked What need to be said in order for me to stay home with my s family Trooper Rhodes replied You got to tell me the truth defendant indicated the cocaine recovered at his home Thereafter was the remainder of I one I ounce of cocaine he had purchased for 000 1 from a man in Thibodaux Defendant also indicated he had purchased pain pills from a little chick Bourda testified that the police took defendant to a shed at the home She claimed O Collins told her to ask defendant where the drugs were located cer She indicated that defendant denied any knowledge of any drugs She stated after the drugs were discovered the police told her that if no one confessed to owning the drugs that everyone would be arrested and the children would be given to child 5 I protection services Bourda stated she then taliced to defendant again and he denied knowledge of the drugs The State specifically rebutted defendanYs claims of police misconduct in eliciting the statement Trooper Rhodes told defendant to tell the truth and used no improper means to obtain his statement V11e find no error or clear abuse of discretion in the trial court denial of the motion to suppress defendant s s statement This assignment of error is without merit PRO SE BRIEF In his pro se brief defendant sets forth that sheriff deputies searched him s when he arrived at the scene and found no illegal drugs in his pocket Additionally he states sheriff sdeputies searched his vehicle without a warrant No substantial rights of the accused were affected by the search of s defendant person or vehicle because no drugs were located there See LSA P Cr C art 921 The motion to suppress challenged the voluntariness of s defendant statement and the legality of the search of his home In his counseled brief defendant presents argument concerning the voluntariness of his statement The pro se brief does not present any argument concerning the inculpatory statement or the drugs recovered from the area of the water heater Assignments of error not briefed on appeal are considered abandoned Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 2 4 12 For the foregoing reasons defendant conviction and sentence are s hereby affirmed CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 4 Defendant counseled brief sets forth t Court correctly ruled thaY the drugs found in the s he water closet were legally seized because defendant had agreed as a condition of his release from prison that his residence could be searched by probation and parole at any time while he was under their supervision 6
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.
