State Of Louisiana VS Jermaine Christopher Brown

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIG FOR PUBL ED d A V ICATION STATE tJF LOUISIAN LRT fJF APP Ai FIiLST IRf iT L NO 2Q12 KA 1533 T 4 S Jl L 4 LiISI VERSUS JERMAINE CHRISTOPHER BROWN Judgment Rendered R M 2 22 3 G J On Appeal from the 21 Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana Trial Court No 803778 The Honorable M Douglas Hughes Judge Presiding Attorney for Defendant Appellant Michael Thiel Baton Rouge Louisiana Jermaine Christopher Brown Patricia Amos Attorneys for Plaintiff Appellee Scott M Perilloux State of Louisiana Amite Louisiana BEFORE GtiIDRY CRA AND THERI JJ IN T CRAIN J The defendant Jermaine Isa Brown was charged by bill of stopher information with armed zobbery in violatioxi of Louisi Revised Statute 14 na 64 count one and aggr fligl rom an afficer in i of Louisiana Revised vated t lation Statute 14 count two He pled not guilty on both counts After trial by C 1 108 jury the defendant was found ualty of the lesser responsive offenses of first degree robbery a violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 14 1and flight from 64 an officer a violation of Louisiana Revised Statute A 1081 14 The defendant was sentenced to forty years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence for the first degree robbery conviction and six months in the parish jail for the flight from an officer conviction The sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other This court previously affirmed the s defendant convictions and sentences See State v Brown ll La App 1 1425 Cir 3unpublished 12 23 The State filed a habitual offender bill of information alleging that the defendant was a second offender and seeking to enhance the first degree felony robbery sentence Following a hearing the triai court adjudicated the defendant a felony second offender vacated the previous first degree robbery sentence and imposed a habitual offender sentence of forty years imprisonment at hard eight labor The defendant appeals arguing that the State failed to prove his habitual offender status beyond a reasonable dou tFor the following reasons we affirm FACTS At the time of the imposition of the habitual offender sentence the trial court did not state that it would be served without the benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence as is required by Louisiana Revised Statute 14 the reference statute See State v Bruins 407 B 1 64 So 2d 685 687 La 1981 Similarly the minute entry does not mention the restriction of these benefits Nonetheless these sentencing restrictions aze automatic pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute 1530L1 See also State v Williams 2000 La 11 800 So 2d 790 A 1725 Ol 28 799 2 On April 26 2008 the defendant entered a Circle K convenience store in Ponchatoula brandishing what appeared to the cashier to be a handgun and directed the cashier to give him cash and cigarettes After the defendanY left the store a police officer noticed him driving at a high rate of speed A shqrt pursuit ensued befare the defendant abandone his vehicle and fled on foot Detectives later identified and arrested the def using evidence found ira the abandoned ant nc vehicle ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR The defendant contends that the evidence introduced by the State to prove his prior conviction was insufficient and that he was not properly identified at the hearing due to the presence of another Jermaine Brown in court earlier that day The defendant arguments are without merit s In a habitual offender proceeding the State has the burden of proving that the defendant was convicted of a prior felony Prima facie proof of a prior conviction may be established by compliance with Louisiana Revised Statute F 1 529 15 but that is not the exclusive method any competent evidence may be used to establish such proo State v Payton 00 La 3 810 So 2d 2899 02 15 ll27 1130 State v Moten 510 So 2d 55 63 La App 1 Cir 1987 writ denied 514 2d So 126 La 1987 Such evidence may include 1 testimony from witnesses 2 expert opinion regarding the fingerprints of the defendant when compared with those in the prior record 3 photographs in the duly authenticated record or 4 evidence of identical driver license number sex race and date of s birth Payton 810 So 2d at 1130 The predicate conviction relied upon by the State was an October 13 1998 nolo contendere plea to armed robbery by Jermaine Brown under docket number 85398 in the Twenty Judicial Dietrict Court Tangipahoa Parish Louisiana First 1998 armed robbery conviction At the habitual offender hearing Vicki Poche a 3 criminal records analyst for the Loaaisiana State Police was accepted as an e ert in the field of fingerprint analysis Through Ms Poche the State introduced a certified copy of fingerprints obtained from the Automated Fingerprint Identification System AF generated in cqnnection with Jermaine C Brown IS s arrest for armed robbery on January 8 1998 and a certified copy of fingerprints from an ink card taken at the time of the October 13 1998 plea Ms roll and Poche testified that those two sets of fmgerprints matched Ms Poche then obtained fingerprints from the defendant by performing an roll and ink fingerprinting ofthe defendant at the habitual offender hearing These fingerprints were compared to the fingerprints from the 1998 armed robbery arrest and conviction Ms Poche testified they were made by the same individual The State also introduced certified copies of the grand jury indictment of Jermaine Brown and minutes of the 1998 armed robbery conviction Defense counsel elicited testimony from Deputy Ross Biandolillo a courtroom bailiff for the trial court He testified that two prisoners named Jermaine Brown were present in the courtroom at one point during the day of the habitual offender hearing Deputy Biandolillo acknowledged that he is not a fingerprint expert He then testified that he did not know whzch Jermaine Brown made the fingerprints set forth in the State fangerprint exhibits s The trial court found that the State met its burden of proving that the defendant was a felony second offender The txial court was correct The fingerprint and documentary evidence established the priar felony conviction and that the defendant was the person convicted of that felony The mere presence in court of another prisoner with a similar name did not raise a reasonable doubt abouY the defendant identity This assignment of error is without merit s HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION AFFIl2MED 4 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.