State Of Louisiana VS Lavon Markee Bullock
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA c J COURT OF APPEAL J FIRST CIRCUIT 2013 KA 0613 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS LAVON MARKEE BULLOCK Judgment Rendered November 1 2013 Appealed from the Second Twenty Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Trial Court Number 527608 Honorable Reginald T Badeaux III Judge Presiding x Walter P Reed Covington LA Counsel for Appellee State of Lou siana Kathryn W Landry Baton Rouge LA Mary E Roper Baton Rouge LA Counsel for Defendant Appellant Lavon Markee Bullock x BEFORE WHIPPLE C WELCH AND CRAIN JJ J WHIPPLE C J The defendant Lavon VI Bullock ucas charged by Twenty Judicial Second District Court bill of information number 52760i with one count of possession of heroin a schedu I le controii ed s ance dange szebs n violatic of LSA S R 1 C 966 40 and mo t sup vider and statements Following a ss s ce hearing the n to suppres wer den nd the defendant pled guilty otions ea reserving his right to challenge th ru an his nnotions tc suppress See North ngs Carolina v Alfard 400 U 2 37 91 S Ct l 60 i67 27 L Ed 2d 162 1970 and S State v Crosby 338 So 2d 5 La 19 He wa ser to fi years at hard 4 6 tenced e labor He now appeals contending 1 the trial court ab its discretion in ased denying the motions to suppress and 2 the trial court erred Yii accepting a guilty plea where the date of the offense established at th hearing c the motions to n suppress differed from the date iistec or the bill of infonmation For the following reasons we affirm he def ssomviciion and sentenc endant e IOTION TO SUPPRESS In assignment of error nurriber 1 ihe deftendant argues the trial court erred in denying the motions to suppress because there was o reasonable suspzcion articulated to justif tYae intrusioaz into he privaay oftr occupaa the vehicle e tsoi A three analysis go the Fourth Amendmez application to tiered ezns s t interactions between citizens and police At tkte first tier mere communications betiveen officers and citizens implicate no Fourth Amendment concems where there is no coercion or detention State v C 2005 La App J st Cir 6 es 2517 06 9 938 So 2d 147 154 writ denied 2006 I 4127 955 So 2d 684 2466 ao 07 The defendant separately appealed from his guilty plea under Twenty Judicial second Distric Court bill af information 520513 See State v Bullock 2013 La App ist Cir 06i2 rendered this date 13 1 also 11 unpublishedl At the second tier ttae investigatory stop recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Terav v Ohio 392 L 1 f S Ct 1868 20 L Ed 2d 89 S s8 1968 the police officer may briefl seize a person rf the officer has an objectively reasonable suspicion upported b specAfic and articulable facts that the person is or is about to be engaged iri criminai conduct or is wanted for past criminal acts Louisiana Code of Criminai Procedure ark 215 provides that an officer Aj 1 s reasonable suspicion of crime allou a limited ir of a person However s vestigaYion reasonable suspicion is insufficient to justify custodial interrogation even though the interrogation is investigative Ca 938 So 2d at 1 les 4 Lastly at the third tier a custodial arrest the officer must have probable cause to believe that the persot has cornmittzd Criminal Procedure article 3 213 uses the a phrase crime Louisiana Code of reasonable cause The probable cause c reasanable cause ne to make a fuil custodial arrest r ded requires more than the reason s need ble spicicn dfor a brief investigatory stop Caples 938 So 2d at 154 The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that in regard to brief investigatory stops the level of suspis required to justify the stop need only rise iori to the level of some minimal level of objective justification In determining whether sufficient suspicion e for the stop a reviewing court znust cthe totality sfed sider r of the circumstances giving deference ta the inferences and deductions of a trained The Z reasonable cause standard of Article 2l3 is equivalent 40 probable caese under 3 the general federal constitutional standard To read Article 213 as allowing an arrest on less than probablE cause would put the ar afoul of the Foarth Amendment Cavles 938 So 2d at 154 icie n3 3 police officer that might we11 elude an untrained person while also weighing the circumstances lrnown to the police not in terms of library analysis by scholars but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement Ca 938 So 2d at les 55 154 The touchstone of the analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all circumstances of the particular govemmental invasion of a s citizen personal security For purposes of the Fourth Amendment the reasonableness of any intrusion on an individual privacy interests depends on a s balance between the public interest and the individual right to personal security s free from arbitrary interference by law officers The inquiry is a purely objective one that does not take into account the subjective intent or beliefs of the police State v Kelley 2005 La 7 934 So 2d 51 54 per curiam cert 1905 06 10 denied 549 U 1065 127 S Ct 691 166 L Ed 2d536 2006 S A search conducted pursuant to consent is an exception to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause State v Youn 2006 La App lst 0234 Cir 9 943 So 2d 1118 1122 writ denied 2006 La 5 956 So 06 15 2488 07 4 2d 606 Informing a suspect of his right to refuse consent to a search is not required Instead the lack of such a warning is only one factor in determining the voluntary nature of consent to a search State v Parfait 96 La App lst 1814 Cir 5 693 So 2d 1232 1240 writ denied 97 La 10 703 So 97 9 1347 97 31 2d 20 St Tammany Parish Sheriffls Office Deputy Matthew Rowley Jr testified at the hearing on the motions to suppress On February 29 2012 at 2 p he was 35 m patrolling Parkline Boulevard a desolate area known for illegal drug activity and for illegal dumping He drove up to a parked blue Hyundai with two occupants The 4 vehicle was parked by a bunch of trash and the nearest house was one hundred yards away No other police officers were present Deputy Rowley approached the occupants of the vehicle Dominique Chauvin was the driver and the defendant was the passenger Chauvin indicated the vehicle belonged to her Depury Rowley recognized the defendant as someone he had previously arrested Chauvin and the defendant both claimed they were looking for rental property Accarding to Deputy Rowley there were no rental prope in the area there was only an old burnt rties down or demolished house nearby and there were no for sale signs on the nearby properties Deputy Rowley asked Chauvin and the defendant to exit the vehicle placed Chauvin at the rear of the vehicle and placed the defendant at the front of the police unit weapons Neither of them was handcuffed The defendant was very nervous He patted down Chauvin for Deputy Rowley told Chauvin he wanted to search the vehicle far weapons and illegal narcotics because she was parked on the side of the road with the defendant in a drug area Chauvin high gave Deputy Rowley permission to search her vehicle Deputy Rowley advised Chauvin she could stop the search of the vehicle at any time She never withdrew consent far the search Prior to searching the vehicle for purposes of officer safety Deputy Rowley asked the defendant whether there was anything in the vehicle such as open needles or firearms that Deputy Rowley needed to know about The defendant stated s there a pipe undemeath my seat Thereafter Deputy Rowley recovered a glass pipe from the front passenger seat and a bottle containing white pills from s Chauvin purse Deputy Rowley testified that based on his knowledge and The 3 State and the defendant stipulated there was a factual basis to support the charge of possession of heroin in the instant case 5 experience he was familiar with crack cocaine and recognized it in the pipe The defendant claimed the pipe belonged to Chauvin but she stated the pipe belonged to the defendant The trial court 3enied the motions to suppress noting Deputy Rowley was patrolling an area known for illegal drug activity and illegal dumping and saw a car in a desolate area at least one hundred yards from the nearest house He approached the car to engage in a brief conversation with the occupants and to see what they were doing Thereafter the driver and owner of the car consented to a search of the vehicle and the defendant freely and voluntarily without duress threats or promises stated there was a pipe under his seat 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 s court discretion i unless such ruling is not supported by the evidence e See State v Green 94 La 5 655 So 2d 272 280 However a trial 87 0 95 22 81 s court legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review State v Hunt 1589 2009 La 12 25 So 3d 746 751 09 1 The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying the motions to suppress Deputy Rowley conduct was a reasonable intrusion on the defendant s s privacy Deputy Rowley needed neither reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop nor probable cause for an arrest to approach the defendant and Chauvin and inquire why they were parked on the side ofthe road See Kelley 934 So 2d at 54 Further ac ectivel viewmg the f ts ob y it was reasonable for De p uty Rowle y to suspect criminal activity The defendant and Chauvin were stopped in a vehicle near a pile of trash in a desolate area known for illegal drug activity and for illegal dumping Deputy Rowley recognized the defendant as someone he had previously 6 arrested Additionally the defendant and Cl claimed they were looking for rental property ut there was no property for s or rent in the area Deputy le Rowlev asked the defendant arrd Chauvin to exit their vehacle and noticed the defendant was nervous The physical ntrusiveness of the defendant detention did s not intensify as the duration of th stop expanded to accommodate xhe growing suspicion of criminal activity I was not handcuffed o restrained circumstances Ie which might have suggested during the lengthening delay that a de facto arrest had taken place See State v vliller 2000 La 10 798 So 2d 947 950 1657 O1 26 per curiam Thereafter Chauvin onsented to a search qf her vehicle and the defendant voluntarily stated there a pipe underr my seat The illegal drugs s eath were recovered pursuant to a consensual search This assignment of error is wi merit hout INCOI2RECT DATE ON BILL OF INFORMATION In assignment of enor number 2 the defendant argues the trial court erred in accepting a guilty plea where the date of the offense established at the motion to suppress hearing differed froYn the date listed on the bill of infotrnation The bill ofinfoamation charged that the offense occurred on or about October 14 2012 At the hearing on the motion to suppress however Deputy Rowley indicated the incident occurred on February 29 2U12 Initially we note the defendant pled guilty without raising the issue of the correctness of the date of the offense listed on the bill of information A defendant waives his right to review ofa non pre error unless at the time of jurisdictional plea his plea he expressly stipulates that he does not waive his right to review of it the normal consequence of a guilty plea See Crosbv 338 So 2d at 591 Moreover the date of commission of the offense was not essential to the 7 offense If the date or time is not essential to the offense an indictment shall not be held insufficient if it does not state the proper date or time or if it states the offense to have been committed on a day subsequent to the fanding of the indictrnent or on an impossible da3 LSA Part Cr C 68 This assignment is wiYhout merit ION I E CONVIC AND SENTENC AFFIRMED 8
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.
