author: DREW, J.

text:
    STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. Willie L. JOHNSON, Appellant.
    No. 47,632-KA.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 16, 2013.

      Washington & Wells, Shreveport, LA, by Alex J. Washington, for Appellant.
    Charles Rex Scott, II, District Attorney, Brian Harrist Barber, Jordan B. Bird, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.
    Before BROWN, STEWART and DREW, JJ.
   DREW, J.

Willie Johnson was sentenced to four years at hard labor after his conviction at jury trial for the crime of resisting an officer with force or violence, in violation of La. R.S. 14:108.2. He now appeals. We affirm in all respects.

TESTIMONY

Corporal Lauzon, of the Shreveport Police Department, testified that:

• on October 10, 2011, at 7:45 a.m., he responded to a disturbance between two females at the Stop and Fly gas station on Jewella Avenue;

• he was in uniform and in a fully marked police car;

• upon arrival, he found Shimeshia Easter being examined by the Shreveport Fire Department paramedics, so he spoke with her boyfriend, the defendant;

• the defendant told him that he had heard that his girlfriend was in a fight so he came to the scene to check on her;

• he told the defendant to stay where he was so he could speak with the girlfriend privately;

• Easter told him that she was standing at the gas station when the other female arrived with her mother and threw a brick at her;

• the two women began fighting and the mother joined in the fight;

• he saw no evidence of a brick at the scene;

• Easter began yelling when he told her that she had criminal exposure, and therefore he would not be arresting the other woman;

• the defendant then approached and also began yelling;

• at Easter’s request, Lauzon called for his supervisor;

• he asked the defendant several times to back away and lower his voice because he was drawing a crowd;

• the defendant began pacing back and forth, which interrupted his interview with Easter because, as the only officer on the scene, he had to constantly watch the defendant’s actions, for officer safety;

• the defendant was verbally aggressive, angry, and clenching his fists;

• the defendant continued moving to the right, which prevented Lauzon from watching him and the crowd that was gathering;

• he attempted to call for backup and told the defendant to back away;

• the defendant told him, “I say my piece”;

• when the defendant refused to lower his voice and back away, he told the defendant to turn around to be patted down for weapons;

• the defendant turned around, but was uncooperative;

• he moved the defendant to his car the better to control his movements;

• the defendant pulled his left arm free and pushed himself into the officer;

• he tried to subdue the defendant by putting his arm over his shoulder, but he spun around and punched him in the ribs, opening his protective vest;

• he pointed his taser at the defendant, who had assumed a fighting stance;

• by this time, 10 to 15 people had gathered and he was the only officer there;

• he kept his taser pointed at the defendant until backup arrived;

• he told the defendant several times to stop resisting;

• officers viewed the gas station’s video, but were unable to copy it;

• recordings were also made by the camera in his patrol unit and the microphone attached to his police uniform;

• he told the defendant several times to calm down; and

• he decided to detain the defendant because of his continued interference with the officer’s interview and for safety concern.

Tammy Jones testified that she was stopped at a traffic light by the station when she saw a white police officer talking with a black male. She then saw the male strike the officer in the face and then crouch in a fighting stance. She saw the officer pull out a weapon of some kind. She was not able to identify any faces. She thought the officer was in trouble and called 911.

Barbara Jenkins testified that:

• she was stopped at the traffic light at the scene when she saw a fight between a white officer, a black male, and a black female;

• the officer appeared to be trying to get the man to back up;

• the male put his hands behind his back, but then spun around and began fighting with the officer, who was attempting to handcuff the male;

• she identified the defendant as the black male she saw that day; and

• she called 911 and later returned to the station to check on the officer.

The defendant’s witnesses tell a remarkably different story.

Earnest Small testified that:

• he saw the officer speaking with Easter and saw the defendant try to tell the officer where to find the people who had attacked Easter;

• the officer told the defendant “to shut up and get back”;

• the defendant again said something and the officer told him “just shut up and be quiet right now”;

• when the officer told the defendant to put his hands on the police car, the officer jumped on the defendant, trying to choke him;

• the police officer then jumped on the defendant’s back, accusing him of resisting, but he was not resisting;

• the officer pulled out his taser and called for backup;

• when the backup arrived, they all attacked the defendant; and

• the defendant never struck the officer, though he did take the officer’s hand off his neck when the officer had him in a choke hold.

Shimeshia Easter testified that the defendant complied with all of the officer’s orders and he never struck the officer.

The defendant testified that Easter kept looking at him for the names of the women who attacked her, so he was shouting the names. When the officer said Easter could not press charges, he asked for a supervisor and Lauzon told him to be quiet. When Lauzon told him to approach, he moved toward the officer with his hands behind his back, at which point the officer began choking him. He fully complied with the officer’s orders and he never struck the officer.

After being convicted by the jury, the defendant then pled guilty to being a second-felony habitual offender for an agreed sentence of four years at hard labor.

DISCUSSION

There are four related issues assigned as error:

• Sufficiency of the evidence;

• The state’s failure to meet its burden of proof as to all elements of the crime;

• Failure to grant a post verdict judgment of acquittal; and

• Failure to grant a new trial.

The defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of resisting an officer by force or violence because:

(1) Officer Lauzon was not attempting to seize property, serve process, or make an arrest when the defendant refused to cooperate;
(2) Lauzon did not have authority to arrest him because he had not broken any laws; and
(3) Lauzon was upset that the defendant and Easter had requested a supervisor and because the defendant was not cooperating, but these reasons did not justify the officer’s restraint of the defendant.

The state responds that the required elements were met because:

(1) Lauzon was in a marked police car, was wearing his police uniform, and was acting in the performance of his duty;
(2) The defendant created a safety issue, justifying a pat down for safety;
(3) The defendant used force against the officer when Lauzon tried to detain him by pushing the officer away and then striking the officer; and
(4)The defendant struck him, as confirmed by testimony from the state’s witnesses, Tammy Jones and Barbara Jenkins.

La. R.S. 14:108.2, Resisting an officer with force or violence, states in pertinent part that:

A. Resisting a police officer with force or violence is any of the following when the offender has reasonable grounds to believe the victim is a police officer who is arresting, detaining, seizing property, serving process, or is otherwise acting in the performance of his official duty: (1) Using threatening force or violence by one sought to be arrested or detained before the arresting officer can restrain him and after notice is given that he is -under arrest or detention.
(4)Using or threatening force or violence toward a police officer performing any official duty. (Emphasis added.)

All four of defendant’s assignments relate to his claims of evidentiary insufficiency. Our law relative to appellate scrutiny of this issue is well settled.

Defendant cites a series of cases, each of which was decided based on La. R.S. 14:108, and not La. R.S. 14:108.2, the crime of conviction.

The evidence of guilt is overwhelming, and the verdict is appropriate. The jury did not believe Earnest Small, Shimeshia Easter, or the defendant.

Lauzon arrived in a marked police car. He was dressed in his uniform, responding in the line of duty about a reported assault and battery. As confirmed by the audio, when Easter requested a supervisor, Lau-zon immediately did so.

The defendant interfered with the investigation by ignoring the officer’s commands to stay back and be quiet until the officer completed his interview. The defendant ignored the officer’s requests and continued to be disruptive by yelling, pacing, and acting physically and verbally aggressive.

The defendant’s noncompliant and aggressive actions prevented the officer from conducting his interview and created a safety issue for Lauzon, the only officer on the scene. Lauzon was now compelled to act to protect himself so that he could continue his duty to investigate without fear of a sudden attack from the defendant. Lauzon was justified in detaining and restraining the defendant.

When the defendant pulled away and struck the officer, he indeed violated the crime of resisting an officer by force or violence.

The jury apparently believed the recordings and the state’s witnesses. Further, the jury apparently disbelieved the defendant and his witnesses.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the evidence was sufficient to find the defendant guilty of resisting an officer by force or violence.

The trial court did not err in denying the motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal, as the defendant made no showing that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence, that there was any prejudicial error, that new and material evidence existed, that prejudicial errors had been made, or that justice warranted a new trial. The trial court was correct to deny the motion for a new trial.

DECREE

The defendant’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

      . The police video and audio were placed in evidence and played for the jury. The electronic evidence backs up the officer’s version of the facts.

      . The Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), held that the proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, supra; State v. Tate, 2001-1658 (La.5/20/03), 851 So.2d 921, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1604, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004); State v. Carter, 42,894 (La.App.2d Cir. 1/9/08), 974 So.2d 181, writ denied, 2008-0499 (La.11/14/08), 996 So.2d 1086. This standard, now legislatively embodied in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder. State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), 1 So.3d 833, writ denied, 2009-0310 (La.11/6/09), 21 So.3d 297. The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La.10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442. A reviewing court accords great deference to a jury’s decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part. State v. Eason, 43,788 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/09), 3 So.3d 685, writ denied, 2009-0725 (La.12/11/09), 23 So.3d 913, cert denied, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3472, 177 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2010); State v. Hill, 42,025 (La.App.2d Cir.5/9/07), 956 So.2d 758, writ denied, 2007-1209 (La.12/14/07), 970 So.2d 529.

        Direct evidence provides proof of the existence of a fact, for example, a witness's testimony that he saw or heard something. State v. Lilly, 468 So.2d 1154 (La.1985). Circumstantial evidence provides proof of collateral facts and circumstances, from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. Id. The trier of fact is charged with weighing the credibility of this evidence and on review, the same standard as in Jackson v. Virginia is applied, giving great deference to the fact finder’s conclusions. Id.

      When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. State v. Lilly, supra.

      Where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, the matter is one of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. State v. Speed, 43,786 (La.App.2d Cir. 1/14/09), 2 So.3d 582, writ denied, 2009-0372 (La.11/6/09), 21 So.3d 299; State v. Allen, 36,180 (La.App.2d Cir.9/18/02), 828 So.2d 622, writs denied, 2002-2595 (La.3/28/03), 840 So.2d 566, 2002-2997 (La.6/27/03), 847 So.2d 1255, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1185, 124 S.Ct. 1404, 158 L.Ed.2d 90 (2004).
      In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, one witness's testimony, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion. State v. Gullette, 43,032 (La.App.2d Cir.2/13/08), 975 So.2d 753; State v. Burd, 40,480 (La.App.2d Cir. 1/27/06), 921 So.2d 219, writ denied, 2006-1083 (La.11/9/06), 941 So.2d 35.
      The trier of fact is charged to make a credibility determination and may, within the bounds of rationality, accept or reject the testimony of any witness; the reviewing court may impinge on that discretion only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law. State v. Casey, 1999-0023 (La.1/26/00), 775 So.2d 1022, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840, 121 S.Ct. 104, 148 L.Ed.2d 62 (2000).
      La. C. Cr. P. art. 821 states that a post verdict judgment of acquittal shall be granted only if the court finds that the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, does not reasonably permit a finding of guilty.
      Under La. C. Cr. P. art. 851, a motion for new trial shall be granted whenever the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence; the trial court’s ruling on a motion or objection shows prejudicial error; new and material evidence exists that would have changed the verdict if presented at trial; a prejudicial error or defect was discovered since the verdict; or the court finds that the justice would be served by granting a new trial.

      . Even if the cases decided under La. R.S. 14:108 were applicable, the defendant fails to acknowledge its 2006 amendment, adding lawful detention as a situation prohibiting a detainee from interfering with, obstructing, opposing, or resisting an officer. It was objectively reasonable for the officer both to detain and frisk the defendant.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: STEWART, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. Adrian Dentarais NELSON, Appellant.
    No. 47,637-KA.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 16, 2013.

      Louisiana Appellate Project by Douglas L. Harville, for Appellant.
    J. Schuyler Marvin, District Attorney, John M. Lawrence, Robert R. Smith, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.
    Before STEWART, CARAWAY and LOLLEY, JJ.
   STEWART, J.

The defendant, Adrian Demarcus Nelson, pled guilty to one count of distribution of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance, namely cocaine, in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A)(1). He was sentenced to serve 15 years at hard labor, to run concurrently with any other sentence. For the reasons assigned below, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence. Further, we order the trial court minutes amended to reflect the defendant’s sentence of 15 years to be served at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence for the first two years.

FACTS

On December 28, 2010, the Bossier Parish Sheriffs Office conducted an investigation. It used audio/video equipment to record the defendant selling $20 worth of a substance, later determined by the crime lab to be cocaine, to an individual working with them.

On August 19, 2011, the defendant was charged by bill of information with distribution of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance, cocaine, in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A)(1). On September 6, 2011, the defendant entered his initial plea of not guilty. However, on December 6, 2011, he pled guilty to one count of distribution of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance, via plea agreement. In exchange, the state agreed not to multi-bill the defendant, and to dismiss other unrelated charges that were pending. A presentenc-ing investigation (hereafter referred to as “PSI”) was ordered.

On April 23, 2012, the sentencing hearing took place. The trial court stated that it had examined the PSI, and that it had taken its contents into consideration pursuant to the guideline set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. It recognized that this is the defendant’s fourth felony conviction. It also acknowledged that the defendant was a 27-year-old father of four and stepfather of two, and that he has a ninth-grade education. After considering the defendant’s aggravating and mitigating factors, the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve 15 years at hard labor, to run concurrently with any other sentence he was currently serving or required to serve.

On April 26, 2012, the defendant’s counsel filed a motion to reconsider sentence, alleging that the defendant’s sentence was unconstitutional. The motion was denied on May 3, 2012. On May 8, 2012, a motion and order for appeal were signed.

The defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion to reconsider sentence on May 22, 2012. This motion was deemed “out of time,” and denied on May 30, 2012.

The defendant now appeals.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

In his sole assignment of error, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing an unconstitutionally excessive sentence. More specifically, the defendant argues that his 15-year sentence is excessive in violation of La. Const. Art. 1, § 20, which prohibits the subjection of any person to cruel, excessive, or unusual punishment.

A trial court has wide discretion to sentence within the statutory limits. Absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion, this court will not set aside a sentence as excessive. State v. Williams, 03-3514 (La.12/13/04), 893 So.2d 7; State v. McCall, 37,442 (La.App.2d Cir.8/20/03), 852 So.2d 1162, writ denied, 04-0039 (La.12/17/04), 888 So.2d 858. On review, the appellate court does not determine whether another sentence may have been more appropriate, but whether the trial court abused its discretion. Id.

In reviewing claims of excessive sentence, an appellate court uses a two-step process. First, the record must show, as it does here, that the trial court took cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The trial court is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating circumstance so long as the record reflects that it adequately considered the guidelines of the article. State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La.1983); State v. Dunn, 30,767 (La.App.2d Cir.6/24/98), 715 So.2d 641.

The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions. Where the record clearly shows an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed, remand is unnecessary even where there has not been full compliance with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La.1982). The important elements which should be considered are the defendant’s personal history (age, family ties, marital status, health, employment record), prior criminal record, seriousness of offense and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049 (La.1981); State v. Haley, 38,258 (La.App.2d Cir.04/22/04), 873 So.2d 747, writ denied, 2004-2606 (La.06/24/05), 904 So.2d 728. There is no requirement that specific matters be given any particular weight at sentencing. State v. Jones, 33,111 (La.App.2d Cir.3/1/00), 754 So.2d 392, writ denied, 00-1467 (La.2/2/01), 783 So.2d 385.

Second, the determination of whether the sentence imposed is too severe is contingent upon the circumstances of the case and the background of the defendant. A sentence violates La. Const. Art. 1, § 20, when it imposes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense or constitutes nothing more than needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03), 839 So.2d 1. A sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are viewed in light of the harm done to society, it shocks the sense of justice. State v. Bradford, 29,519 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), 691 So.2d 864.

La. R.S. 40:967 states in pertinent part:

A. Except as authorized by this Part or by Part VII-B of Chapter 5 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally:
(1) To produce, manufacture, distribute, or dispense or possess with intent to produce, manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled dangerous substance controlled substance analogue classified in Schedule II;
B. Except as provided in Subsection F, any person who violates Subsection A with respect to:
(4)(b) Distribution, dispensing, or possession with intent to produce, manufacture, distribute, or dispense cocaine or cocaine base or a mixture or substance containing cocaine or its analogues as provided in Schedule 11(A)(4) of R.S. 40:964 ... shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than two years nor more than thirty years, with the first two years of said sentence being without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence; and may, in addition, be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars.

After reviewing the record, we do not find the defendant’s sentence is constitutionally excessive. The record reveals that the trial court considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, thereby complying with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, and tailored the sentence to the instant offense and this offender. The PSI ordered and reviewed by the trial court indicates that the background of the defendant and the circumstances of the case support the 15-year sentence. The trial court noted several facts contained in the PSI including the defendant’s personal history, education, family and work history, as well as his criminal history. As discussed in the facts section, the court noted that the defendant was a 27-year-old father of four and stepfather of two, and that he has a ninth-grade education.

The trial court acknowledged that the defendant is a fourth felony offender, and that any lesser sentence he might give would deprecate the seriousness of the instant offense. The defendant was previously convicted of several counts of drug possession and distribution, and one count of middle grade felony theft.

The defendant’s 15-year sentence fell within the midrange of the 2 to 30-year statutory period of incarceration. Via plea agreement, the defendant received less than the maximum sentence for this offense, and a significant reduction in potential exposure to confinement because the state agreed not to file a multiple offender bill.

The imposition of the 15-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense, nor is it shocking to the sense of justice. This sentence, which was imposed pursuant to the trial court’s wide discretion, was tailored to fit this defendant. For these reasons, we find no manifest abuse of discretion. This assignment is without merit.

ERROR PATENT

A review of the record reveals one error patent. The defendant was charged with and convicted of distribution of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance, cocaine, in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A)(1). He was sentenced to serve 15 years at hard labor. As stated in the law and discussion portion of this opinion, La. R.S. 40:96T(B)(4)(b) sets the penalty for this offense, and provides for a term of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than two nor more than 30 years, with the first two years of said sentence being without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The statute also provides, in addition to the term of imprisonment, that the defendant could be fined not more than fifty thousand dollars.

The trial court did not stipulate that the first two years of the defendant’s sentence be without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Therefore, the sentence is illegally lenient.

Paragraph A of La. R.S. 15:301.1 addresses those instances where sentences contain statutory provisions on parole, probation or suspension of sentence. This paragraph provides in pertinent part:

The failure of a sentencing court to specifically state that all or a portion of the sentence is to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence shall not in any way affect the statutory requirement that all or a portion of the sentence be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

This statute deems that those required statutory restrictions are contained in the sentence, whether or not imposed by the sentencing court. Further, La. R.S. 15:301.1(A) self-activates the correction, eliminating the need to remand for a ministerial correction of the illegally lenient sentence resulting from the failure of the sentencing court to impose the restrictions. State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790.

Even though there is no need to remand for correction of the sentencing error, we order that the trial minutes be amended to reflect a sentence of 15 years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence for the first two years.

CONCLUSION

For the above-mentioned reasons, the defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. Further, we order the trial court minutes amended to reflect the defendant’s sentence of 15 years to be served at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence for the first two years.

AFFIRMED; WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR CORRECTION OF MINUTES.


author: SEXTON, Judge Pro Tern.

text:
    STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. Randall Wayne WOMACK, Jr., Appellant.
    No. 47,639-KA.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 16, 2013.

      Teresa Culpepper Carroll, Jonesboro, LA, for Appellant.
    Randall W. Womack, Jr., Pro Se.
    J. Schuyler Marvin, District Attorney, John M. Lawrence, R. Lane Pittard, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.
    Before BROWN, HARRISON (Pro Tempore) & SEXTON (Pro Tempore), JJ.
   SEXTON, Judge Pro Tern.

Defendant, Randall Wayne Womack, Jr., was found guilty of both armed robbery and attempted armed robbery. He was subsequently sentenced to 50 years at hard labor for the armed robbery conviction and 15 years at hard labor for the attempted armed robbery conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Defendant now appeals. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.

FACTS

On September 17, 2010, Defendant and three other men, Dillon Murphy, Joshua Lopez and David Weeks, committed an armed and attempted armed robbery against victims Jose and Orlando Tecciau, respectively, at the victims’ home in Plain Dealing, Louisiana. While Lopez waited in the car, Defendant, Weeks and Murphy armed themselves with weapons and entered the house. They kicked open the bedroom door, found the victims and demanded money. Murphy grabbed a wallet from the dresser and the men fled from the house. Murphy and Lopez escaped in the vehicle, while Weeks and Defendant fled on foot. Shortly thereafter, police apprehended Defendant -within a mile from the victims’ home and drove him back to the scene where he was identified by the victims as one of the persons who robbed them. Police found the vehicle abandoned and discovered a sword, billy bat and pipe in the back seat. The other three men were subsequently arrested. On June 22, 2011, the State filed a bill of information charging all four men with one count of armed robbery and one count of attempted armed robbery. An amended bill was filed on December 12, 2011, charging them with the same crimes, but adding three other possible dangerous weapons as being used during the commission of the crimes. While his three co-perpetrators entered into plea agreements and received sentences of up to three and five years’ imprisonment at hard labor, Defendant pled not guilty and elected to proceed to trial.

At trial, the jury heard testimony from multiple witnesses called by the State. Bossier Parish Patrol Deputy Mike McConnell testified that he was dispatched to the scene and that he took statements from the victims. Jose and Orlando Tec-ciau described the perpetrators as three short white males with long knives. On cross-examination, Dep. McConnell testi-fled that there was no appearance of physical damage to the door, nor any signs of a struggle inside the home.

Bossier Parish Detective Brandon Masters testified that he met Dr. Robert Hewlett, a veterinarian and the victims’ employer and landlord, at the end of Linda Lane. Dr. Hewlett testified that he lived one-half mile from the Tecciau house and was in his driveway leaving his residence when Jose called him and told him they had been robbed. Dr. Hewlett drove to the Tecciau house and saw Defendant’s vehicle. As he approached, the vehicle sped away and Dr. Hewlett chased the perpetrators until the vehicle turned onto a dead-end street. The men abandoned the vehicle and ran through the woods. Dr. Hewlett waited "with the vehicle and Det. Masters was among the responding officers. Det. Masters testified that he had the vehicle towed to the impound lot. He then returned to the Tecciau home and interviewed Jose Tecciau, who told him that three men came into their home with weapons and robbed them.

After leaving the Tecciau home, Det. Masters was stopped by a passing motorist, who informed him that a man was walking on Old Plain Dealing Road and attempting to hitchhike. Det. Masters and a fellow officer found the man approximately one-half mile from the victims’ home. After a brief chase, Det. Masters and the other officer apprehended the man, placed him in the back of the patrol unit and drove him to the victims’ home where they positively identified him as one of the persons who robbed them. The man was later identified as Defendant.

According to the testimony of Deputy Josh Catheart, Defendant told officers that Weeks and Lopez were with him that evening. Det. Masters used his patrol unit’s computer to pull Lopez’s, Weeks’ and Murphy’s driver’s license photos and asked the victims to identify the men in the photos. They identified Weeks as one of the men who had robbed them. Det. Masters eventually went to the impound lot where the vehicle had been towed and observed a small sword, large sword sheath, billy bat and pipe on the floorboard of the back seat. Sergeant David Faulk, of the Bossier Parish Office Crime Scene Investigations Unit, corroborated Det. Masters’ testimony as to the weapons found inside the vehicle. In addition, a wallet containing Defendant’s identification was found in the center console of the vehicle.

Murphy testified at trial. He stated that, prior to the robbery, the four men met at Weeks’ home in Shreveport where Defendant discussed plans “that we go to these Mexicans out on this ranch out here in Plain Dealing and that they just got paid so that they’ve got a lot of money and we rob them.” Later that night, Lopez drove the men to Plain Dealing where he, Defendant and Weeks, armed with a billy bat, sword and pipe, entered Jose and Orlando Tecciau’s home. According to Murphy, “the bedroom door got kicked open and he [Defendant] held the Mexican up with the sword ... I took the wallet off the dresser and took off running.” Murphy testified that he jumped in the car with Lopez and the two sped away from the home. Murphy further testified that he removed the money from the wallet and tossed the wallet out of the car. An empty brown wallet was recovered by police that night on the side of Doyal Road, near the Tecciau home. Jose Tecciau identified the wallet found on Doyal Road as his wallet that had been taken during the robbery.

Lopez testified next and offered inconsistent testimony. When first asked by the district attorney if Defendant had an idea or plan to commit a crime on the evening in question, Lopez responded affirmatively that “we were going to rob some Mexicans.” Later in his testimony, when the district attorney asked him what was his understanding as to the events that were to take place that night at the victims’ home, Lopez stated that, “I really don’t know what was supposed to take place. The only thing I knew I was supposed to go solicit prostitution. That’s it.” He again changed his story when the district attorney asked him, “Now earlier that evening, though, I think you already testified that when [Defendant] came to the house he discussed committing a robbery. Is that correct?” Lopez responded, “Yes, sir.”

With regard to Defendant’s state of mind prior to the robbery, Lopez testified that “[Defendant] was the — he was still asleep and he and my brother and them was in the back. He was asleep. On the way there he was still drinking because there was still some more drink left. He was drinking still and he was asleep and he had a headache and he just Iayed [sic] down until we got there.”

Lopez further testified that, once the four men arrived at the victims’ home, he remained in the vehicle while Defendant, Weeks and Murphy “must have got weapons out of the back of the trunk” and went inside. After a short period of time in the house, the three men came running outside. Lopez stated that Murphy jumped in the car with him while his brother, Weeks, threw “some stuff in the back of the seat.” Lopez claimed that he did not know what took place inside the house, but that “I just know that [Murphy] had the money in his hand. I didn’t know nothing about no wallet.” During cross-examination, defense counsel asked Lopez if he ever saw Murphy with a “big wad of cash,” which he denied.

Weeks also testified. He related that Defendant “had been drinking a little bit,” but “he had done sobered up a little bit” by the time Defendant arrived at Weeks’ home in Shreveport. Weeks corroborated Lopez’s story that the original plan was to solicit prostitution, but claimed that, when they arrived in Plain Dealing, “it all went wrong and he [Defendant] wanted to rob them.” Weeks’ testimony also confirmed the fact that he was armed with a pipe while Defendant had a sword and Murphy had a billy bat. According to Weeks, Defendant kicked in the bedroom door; and, when the victims started to get up from their seats, Weeks told them, “No, man, don’t move. Just stay right there. Don’t you move.” He stated that “Murphy grabbed the wallet off the thing because he was told to and he followed right behind me.”

Finally, the victims, Jose and Orlando Tecciau, testified. Neither victim is fluent in English; therefore, an interpreter assisted them. Jose confirmed that the three men took the wallet off the dresser and fled from the house. When the district attorney asked him who was the perpetrator with the sword, he responded that it was “the same person that he identified in the patrol [unit]” and he explained that he was able to identify Defendant as one of the intruders because “he was in front of me and that’s the only reason why I remember him completely.” On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Jose if he recognized the two people in the pictures shown to him by the officers and he responded that they looked familiar.

Orlando Tecciau’s testimony was more difficult to follow, possibly because of the language barrier. He stated that three individuals came “busting the [interior] door” and demanded money. While he first denied that the intruders had any weapons, he immediately stated that one man had a baseball bat. He claimed that he could only see one person because he was sitting in front of a television when the men entered the room. However, he then testified that he never saw their faces and could not identify the individuals because when he stood, the men were walking away from him. Orlando testified that the men were wearing dark hoodies at the time of the robbery.

As previously stated, on December 14, 2011, the jury found Defendant guilty as charged of both the armed robbery of Jose Tecciau and the attempted armed robbery of Orlando Tecciau. During sentencing, the court considered Defendant’s extensive criminal history, his brief and inconsistent employment history, his familial relationships, the need for correctional treatment, the fact that his crime created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person, the use of threats of violence during the commission of the crime and the belief that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the crime. As stated, Defendant was then sentenced to serve 50 years at hard labor for the armed robbery and 15 years for the attempted armed robbery, with the sentences to run concurrently. A Motion and Order to Reconsider Sentence was denied.

Defendant now appeals.

DISCUSSION

Assignment of Error Number One (Verbatim): The jury erred, as a matter of law, in finding the defendant guilty as charged based on insufficient evidence.

The standard for review in cases that raise sufficiency of the evidence is found in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The Jackson standard, now legislatively embodied in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder. State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), 1 So.3d 833, writ denied, 09-0310 (La.11/06/09), 21 So.3d 297. The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La.10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442. A reviewing court accords great deference to a jury’s decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part. State v. Eason, 43,788 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/09), 3 So.3d 685, writ denied, 09-0725 (La.12/11/09), 23 So.3d 913; State v. Hill, 42,025 (La.App.2d Cir.5/9/07), 956 So.2d 758, writ denied, 07-1209 (La.12/14/07), 970 So.2d 529.

The trier of fact is charged to make a credibility determination and may, within the bounds of rationality, accept or reject the testimony of any witness; the reviewing court may impinge on that discretion only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law. State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La.1/26/00), 775 So.2d 1022, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840, 121 S.Ct. 104, 148 L.Ed.2d 62 (2000). In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, one witness’s testimony, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion. State v. Gullette, 43,032 (La.App.2d Cir.2/13/08), 975 So.2d 753; State v. Burd, 40,480 (La.App.2d Cir.1/27/06), 921 So.2d 219, writ denied, 06-1083 (La.11/9/06), 941 So.2d 35.

An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct evidence and inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. State v. Jacobs, 504 So.2d 817 (La.1987); State v. Adkins, 39,724 (La.App.2d Cir.6/29/05), 907 So.2d 232, writ denied, 06-2514 (La.5/4/07), 956 So.2d 607; State v. Lott, 535 So.2d 963 (La.App. 2d Cir.1988).

La. R.S. 14:64 provides:

A. Armed robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon.
B. Whoever commits the crime of armed robbery shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than ten years and for not more than ninety-nine years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

The immediate control required of the armed robbery statutes is satisfied when the property taken is within the presence of the owner. State v. Refuge, 300 So.2d 489 (La.1974). Armed robbery may occur where property taken is not in actual contact with the victim. State v. Boelyn, 432 So.2d 260 (La.1983).

Any person acting with specific intent to commit a crime, who acts or fails to act, with the purpose of and toward that goal is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended, regardless of whether he would have actually accomplished that goal. La. R.S. 14:27. The state may prove a defendant guilty by showing that he served as a principal to the crime by aiding another. State v. Scroggins, 40,746 (La.App.2d Cir.3/22/06), 926 So.2d 64, writ denied, 06-0980 (La.11/3/06), 940 So.2d 655. Under this theory, the defendant need not actually take anything to be found guilty of the crime. Id.; State v. Dominick, 354 So.2d 1316 (La.1978). Also, a defendant convicted as a principal need not have personally held a weapon to be guilty of armed robbery. State v. Watson, 397 So.2d 1337 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 903, 102 S.Ct. 410, 70 L.Ed.2d 222 (1981). A person, who aids and abets another in a crime, is liable just as the person who directly commits it. Id. A critical inquiry in robbery cases involving principals is whether or not the alleged principal had knowledge that the crime was going to take place. Id.

Louisiana law allows an accomplice to testify against a co-perpetrator even if the state offers inducements to testify. Such inducements are a fact in evaluating the witness’s credibility. State v. Hughes, 05-0992 (La.11/29/06), 943 So.2d 1047. A conviction may be sustained by the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, although the jury should be instructed to treat the testimony with caution. State v. Hughes, supra.

In the case sub judice, police apprehended Defendant half a mile from the Tecciau residence shortly after the robbery was committed. When officers attempted to approach Defendant, he immediately fled. All three co-perpetrators, as well as the victims, testified that Defendant was one of the men who took part in the armed robbery. The evidence was sufficient for a trier of fact to conclude that Defendant was at the residence on the night of the armed robbery.

Murphy stated during his -testimony that he took the wallet from the dresser and ran out of the room. This was corroborated by Weeks’ testimony. As a principal to armed robbery, it is of no consequence that Defendant neither physically took the wallet, nor directed Murphy to do so; any actions performed by his co-perpetrators are imputed to him. As such, the evidence submitted would allow a jury to find that, as a principal to armed robbery, Defendant took the wallet from the victims’ home.

Next, the State introduced sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the wallet was within the immediate control of the victim. Murphy testified that he took the wallet from the dresser and ran. Jose Tecciau testified that his money was in his wallet on the nightstand and one of the robbers picked it up. From this evidence, a trier of fact could find that the victim’s wallet was on a dresser in the room where the victims were located and, as such, was within the immediate control of the victims.

With regard to Defendant’s claim that there was no proof of use of force or intimidation, we note the testimony of Weeks and Murphy that Defendant kicked open the bedroom door where the victims were located. Orlando Tecciau corroborated this in his testimony when he stated that the men burst through the bedroom door.

We further conclude that the jury could have reasonably found that Defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon. Murphy testified that Defendant “held the Mexican up with the sword.” Weeks’ testimony corroborated this when he stated that Defendant was armed with a sword when the men entered the victims’ home. In addition, Dep. McConnell and Det. Masters both testified that, on the night of the armed robbery, Jose Tecciau stated that three men entered their home and were armed with weapons.

Lastly, Defendant claims that he was too intoxicated to form the requisite intent to commit the robbery and that the State failed to present evidence to support a finding that he did have the necessary intent. However, Weeks testified that Defendant had begun to sober up at the time he unveiled his plan to commit the robbery. The verdict suggests that the jury found this witness’s evidence to be credible and that Defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crime.

Though Defendant does not raise a sufficiency of evidence argument with regard to the attempted armed robbery charge, there was ample testimony presented for a jury to find that Defendant committed the offense.

In summary, from the evidence presented, a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant did knowingly and willfully commit the crimes of armed robbery and attempted armed robbery.

This assignment of error is without merit.

Assignment of Error Number Two (Verbatim): The district court erred, as a matter of law, in denying defense Motion to Reconsider Sentence and sentencing the defendant to an excessive sentence.

In determining whether a sentence is excessive, the reviewing court will first examine the record to ascertain if the trial court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors under La. C. Cr. P. art. 894 in determining a factual basis for the sentence imposed. State v. Smith, 483 So.2d 688 (La.1983); State v. Lathan, 41,855 (La.App.2d Cir.2/28/07), 953 So.2d 890, writ denied, 07-0805 (La.3/28/08), 978 So.2d 297. The court must consider such factors as defendant’s personal history, prior criminal record, seriousness of the offense and likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049 (La.1981); State v. Ates, 43,327 (La.App.2d Cir.8/13/08), 989 So.2d 259, writ denied, 08-2341 (La.5/15/09), 8 So.3d 581.

Second, a sentence violates La. Const. Art. 1, § 20, if it is grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense or nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03), 839 So.2d 1; State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La.1993); State v. Bonanno, 384 So.2d 355 (La.1980). If the sentence imposed, in light of the harm done to society, shocks the sense of justice, then the sentence imposed is excessive. State v. Weaver, 01-0467 (La.1/15/02), 805 So.2d 166; State v. Robinson, 40,983 (La.App.2d Cir.1/24/07), 948 So.2d 379. Maximum sentences are reserved for the worst offenders and offenses. State v. Cozzetto, 07-2031 (La.2/15/08), 974 So.2d 665; State v. McKinney, 43,061 (La.App.2d Cir.2/13/08), 976 So.2d 802.

The trial judge has wide discretion in imposing sentences within the statutory limits and in consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Therefore, a reviewing court only considers whether the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Williams, 03-3514 (La.12/13/04), 893 So.2d 7; State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La.5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043, 117 S.Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996).

La. R.S. 14:64(B) provides:

[w]hoever commits the crime of armed robbery shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than ten years and for not more than ninety-nine years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

Regarding attempted armed robbery, La. R.S. 14:27(D)(3), states, in pertinent part, that “such fine or imprisonment shall not exceed one-half of the largest fine, or one-half of the longest term of imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted, or both.”

Defendant focuses mainly on the trial judge’s sentence for the completed armed robbery conviction. The trial judge acknowledged Defendant’s family consisting of a wife and two children, as well as his inconsistent and unstable history of employment. The trial judge then addressed Defendant’s lengthy criminal history of felony theft, simple burglary, illegal use of weapons and attempted felony theft, as well as his numerous convictions for sex crimes and crimes of violence. The trial judge also considered the risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person threatened by Defendant’s actions. Lastly, the trial judge cited Defendant’s use of threats of violence and dangerous weapons during the commission of the crime. The trial judge also noted several of the factors considered in the sentencing guidelines of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and articulated his reasons for the sentence imposed.

The sentence imposed for armed robbery is mid-range, while the sentence for the attempted armed robbery is far below the potential sentence of 49½ years. When the crime and punishment are viewed in light of the harm done to society, 50 years in prison is not grossly disproportionate to the crimes committed, and the sentence does not shock the sense of justice. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing these sentences.

This assignment is without merit.

Pro Se Assignments of Error

Defendant, pro se, assigns four additional assignments of error on appeal. Each of these assignments will be addressed in turn.

Pro Se Assignment of Error Number One (Verbatim): The District Court committed error sufficient to reverse their ruling when they failed to provide appellant with adequate record and transcribe appellant’s voir dire examination and peremptory challenges.

On January 26, 2012, and April 10, 2012, Defendant filed pro se requests for a free copy of his Boykin transcript, district court minutes, documents committing him into custody and “every document that have my name on it dealing with my trial.” Defendant was provided a free copy of his bill of information, criminal case minutes and documents committing him to custody, but the judge denied him any other copies absent a showing of a particularized need.

Defendant argues that he has been deprived of his constitutional right to judicial review because the appeal record is inadequate for review. He claims that the court reporter failed to transcribe the voir dire from the three panels of prospective jurors, as well as the peremptory challenges.

La. Const. Art. 1, § 19, states that “No person shall be subjected to imprisonment or forfeiture of rights or property without the right of judicial review based upon a complete record of all evidence upon which the judgment is based.” La. Const. Art. 1, § 19. Additionally, La. C. Cr. P. art. 843 provides in pertinent part:

In felony cases, ... the clerk or court stenographer shall record all of the proceedings, including the examination of prospective jurors, the testimony of witnesses, statements, rulings, orders, and charges by the court, and objections, questions, statements, and arguments of counsel.

Courts have refused, however, to overturn a trial court’s ruling when a defendant does not cite to any error or evidentiary hearing relative to the trial, or point to a specific instance of prejudice with respect to any ruling of the court. State v. Neely, 08-707 (La.App. 5th Cir.12/16/08), 8 So.3d 532, writ denied, 09-0248 (La.10/30/09), 21 So.3d 272. Here, Defendant has made no showing that he has been prejudiced by the missing portion of the record. Rather, and without any supporting argument, he simply states that there is a strong possibility that prejudicial remarks tainted the jury and that the omissions leave him with no form of the record in which he may seek judicial redress.

This assignment is without merit.

Pro Se Assignment of Error Number Two (Verbatim): The District Court violated appellant’s due process of law when it allowed the State to use the unduly suggestive identification made while appellant was in the back seat of a patrol unit.

Defendant claims that his due process rights were violated when police officers took him to the victims’ home in the back of a patrol unit for the victims to make an identification. Defendant further argues that his due process rights were violated when an officer presented photos of him to the victims for identification without first placing them in a photo lineup.

Initially, we note that Defendant failed to file a motion to suppress the identifications of which he now complains. La. C. Cr. P. art. 841(A) states, in pertinent part, “An irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.” Since Defendant did | not file a motion to suppress the identification prior to trial, he is now precluded from raising this issue on appeal.

Nonetheless, we find that no violation of due process occurred herein. To prove a violation of due process, a defendant must first show that the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and, second, that there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Admitting evidence of a suggestive identification procedure does not violate due process if the identification is rehable. Manson v. Brathwaite, 482 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). When assessing the reliability of an identification, the following factors must be considered: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of his or her prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. State v. Kemp, 39,358 (La.App.2d Cir.3/11/05), 896 So.2d 349, writ denied, 05-0937 (La.12/09/05), 916 So.2d 1052, citing Manson, supra.

While one-on-one identifications are generally not favored, such identification procedures are permissible under certain circumstances. One-on-one identifications are justified when the accused is apprehended within a relatively short period of time after the occurrence of the crime and has been returned to the scene for immediate identification. State v. Hurd, 05-258 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/29/05), 917 So.2d 567, writ denied, 06-1128 (La.11/17/06), 942 So.2d 530. Such prompt confrontations between the defendant and the victim provide fairness by “ensuring the reliability of the identification and the expeditious release of innocent suspects.” State v. Clennon, 98-1370 (La.App. 5th Cir.6/30/99), 738 So.2d 161.

Jose Tecciau testified that he remembered Defendant because Defendant was standing directly in front of him during the robbery. Since the victim was within close range of Defendant, he would have been able to recognize Defendant. Second, police apprehended Defendant and brought him back to the scene of the crime shortly after the robbery. Such a prompt confrontation between the victim and Defendant ensured a reliable identification as the victim could have easily recalled the appearance of the defendant after only a short amount of time had passed between the incident and the identification.

Furthermore, we find no support for Defendant’s claims that the police showed the victims two photos of him. During the cross-examination of Jose Tecciau, defense counsel asked Jose if he remembered police officers showing him pictures of two other individuals, to which Jose responded affirmatively. This is corroborated by the testimony of Det. Masters who stated that he pulled up two photographs of Weeks and Lopez on his patrol unit computer and showed them to the victims to identify. At no point does the record indicate that the officers showed photos of Defendant to the victims.

This assignment is without merit.

Pro Se Assignment of Error Number Three (Verbatim): When sentencing appellant, Trial Court violated due process when relying upon aggravating circumstances which were also necessary elements of the offense.

Defendant claims that the trial court erred when it took into consideration for sentencing purposes certain provisions of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 that are also necessary elements of the crime of armed robbery, particularly the use of a dangerous weapon and threats of or actual violence in the commission of the offense.

La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 states in pertinent part:

B. The following grounds, while not controlling the discretion of the court, shall be accorded weight in its determination of suspension of sentence or probation:
(6) The offender used threats of or actual violence in the commission of the offense.
(10) The offender used a dangerous weapon in the commission of the offense.

The fact that some of the factors under La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1(B) are subsumed in the charge of armed robbery does not dictate that such factors should not be considered in sentencing. State v. Willis, 45,857 (La.App.2d Cir.12/15/10), 56 So.3d 362, writ denied, 11-0150 (La.6/17/11), 63 So.3d 1034.

Defendant’s argument lacks any legal support and is without merit.

Pro Se Assignment of Error Number Four (Verbatim): The District Court erred in that there was no justification in the record to support the great disparity in sentences of the co-defendants in this case.

Defendant claims that the record failed to provide any justification as to the great disparity between his sentence and that of his co-perpetrators. There is no legal requirement, however, that a sentencing judge treat codefendants equally. State v. Quimby, 419 So.2d 951 (La.1982).

This assignment is without merit.

Defendant's final pro se assignment of error requests review for errors patent. This Court automatically performs an errors patent cheek in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.1975), and none were found.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences of Defendant, Randall Wayne Womack, Jr., are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

      . Lopez is a cross-dresser and homosexual and was dressed like a woman on the night of the robbery. According to his testimony, Defendant was "pimping” Lopez out for sex. Lopez explained that the two had been at the ranch in Plain Dealing earlier in the day for prostitution and had made money. The record reveals that the "ranch” has several rental houses on it; and, according to Lopez, there were 15-20 Mexicans there that afternoon for a rodeo. Lopez testified that he believed that they were returning to the ranch that evening for more prostitution; however, Defendant decided to change the plan from prostitution to robbery.


author: HARRISON, Judge Pro Tem.

text:
    STATE of Louisiana, Appellee v. James E. MASON, Jr., Appellant.
    No. 47,642-KA.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 16, 2013.

      Paula C. Marx, Louisiana Appellate Project, Harold D. Register, Jr., Lafayette, LA, for Appellant.
    Charles R. Scott, II, District Attorney, Tommy J. Johnson, J. Dhu Thompson, R. Bennett Langford, III, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.
    Before DREW, LOLLEY and HARRISON (Pro Tempore), JJ.
   HARRISON, Judge Pro Tem.

The defendant, Jason Edward Mason, Jr., was convicted of second degree murder in the drive-by shooting death of a 16-year-old girl. He was sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. He appeals, asserting four assignments of error. We affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS

At about 4:30 p.m. on November 27, 2007, the victim, Latora Wiley, was walking with a large group of teenagers on Ledbetter Street in Shreveport. Some members of the group were walking on the sidewalk, others in the street. A white Equinox SUV drove down the street, and a confrontation ensued. Several teens yelled at the vehicle occupants that the SUV had almost struck some of them. The SUV left the area, and the teens continued on to a local park. After staying theré for about 10 minutes, the group left the park and began walking on Led-better Street again. At this time, the SUV returned. Charles Evans, the passenger in the SUV, fired shots which killed the victim and wounded a teenage boy. The vehicle fled; however, several of the teens saw it in the park a few minutes later.

The police quickly developed the 25-year-old Evans as a suspect. When the police went to his house, his teenage sister informed them that he had admitted to her that he shot two people. When he returned home, Evans was taken into custody. He gave a statement, after which he was booked into the jail.

It was also discovered that the driver of the SUV was the defendant, Evans’ 41-year-old uncle, and that the vehicle belonged to him and his wife. The police asked the defendant to come to the station and give a statement that evening. He complied. After he gave his statement, the police reinterviewed Evans, who gave a statement implicating his uncle. On November 30, 2007, the defendant was interviewed again. Subsequently, he was arrested as a principal in the shooting death of the victim.

In January 2008, the defendant testified before a grand jury, which indicted him for second degree murder in the victim’s death. Following a jury trial, he was convicted as charged in August 2011. Evans invoked his right against self-incrimination and did not testify at his uncle’s trial.

A sentencing hearing was held in September 2011. The defendant’s verbal motion for new trial was denied, and the trial court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without benefits. The trial court also denied the defendant’s oral motion to reconsider sentence.

In January 2012, the defendant filed a motion for new trial in which he alleged the procurement of new evidence, i.e., a statement from his nephew exonerating him. A hearing was held in April 2012. Evans, who entered a guilty plea to manslaughter and attempted murder after the defendant’s trial, testified that his uncle did not know that he was going to shoot, did not directly give him the gun back or encourage him to shoot. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that it was untimely and that none of the evidence presented was new evidence.

The defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence, asserting four assignments of error.

SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

Law

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Tate, 2001-1658 (La.5/20/03), 851 So.2d 921, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1604, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004); State v. Carter, 42,894 (La.App.2d Cir.1/9/08), 974 So.2d 181, writ denied, 2008-0499 (La.11/14/08), 996 So.2d 1086. This standard, now legislatively embodied in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder. State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), 1 So.3d 833, writ denied, 2009-0310 (La.11/6/09), 21 So.3d 297. The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La.10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442. A reviewing court accords great deference to a jury’s decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part. State v. Eason, 43,788 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/09), 3 So.3d 685, writ denied, 2009-0725 (La.12/11/09), 23 So.3d 913; State v. Hill, 42,025 (La.App.2d Cir.5/9/07), 956 So.2d 758, writ denied, 2007-1209 (La.12/14/07), 970 So.2d 529.

Where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, the matter is one of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. State v. Goss, 46,193 (La.App.2d Cir.5/18/11), 70 So.3d 6.

The Jackson standard is applicable in cases involving both direct and circumstantial evidence. An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in such cases must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct evidence and inferred from the circumstances established by that evidence must be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. State v. Sutton, 436 So.2d 471 (La.1983); State v. Speed, 43,786 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), 2 So.3d 582, writ denied, 2009-0372 (La.11/6/09), 21 So.3d 299.

In relevant part, La R.S. 14:30.1 states: A. Second degree murder is the killing of a human being:
(1) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm; or
(2) When the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of ... assault by drive-by shooting ..., even though he has no intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.

A “drive-by shooting” means the discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle on a public street or highway with the intent to either kill, cause harm to, or frighten another person. La. R.S. 14:B7.1(C).

A defendant who is a principal in a drive-by shooting can be convicted of second degree felony murder even though the fatal shot was fired by a companion acting in concert with the defendant in the commission of the shooting. State v. Stewart, 43,149 (La.App.2d Cir.5/7/08), 982 So.2d 353, writ denied, 2008-1343 (La.3/6/09), 3 So.3d 480; State v. Brooks, 45,778 (La.App.2d Cir.3/2/11), 58 So.3d 506, writ denied, 2011-0631 (La.10/7/11), 71 So.3d 309.

Regarding the law of principals, La. R.S. 14:24 provides:

All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly counsel or procure another to commit the crime, are principals.

Only those persons who knowingly participate in the planning or execution of a crime are principals. Mere presence at the scene is therefore not enough to “concern” an individual in the crime. Moreover, an individual may only be convicted as a principal for those crimes for which he personally has the requisite mental state. State v. Pierre, 631 So.2d 427 (La.1994). All persons concerned in the commission of an offense, either directly or indirectly, are principals in the crime and culpable according to the mental state they possess at the time of the offense. It is sufficient encouragement that the accomplice is standing by at the scene of the crime ready to give some aid if needed, although in such a case it is necessary that the principal actually be aware of the accomplice’s intention. State v. Anderson, 97-1301 (La.2/6/98), 707 So.2d 1223; State v. Hampton, 46,363 (La.App.2d Cir.5/18/11), 69 So.3d 614, writ denied, 2011-1467 (La.2/3/12), 79 So.3d 1024.

Under the doctrine of transferred intent, when a person shoots at an intended victim with the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm and accidentally kills or inflicts great bodily harm upon another person, if the killing or infliction of great bodily harm would have been unlawful against the intended victim, then it would be unlawful against the person actually shot even though that person was not the intended victim. State v. Brooks, 42,226 (La.App. 2d Cir.8/15/07), 962 So.2d 1220. A person may be convicted of an offense even if he has not personally fired the fatal shot. The law of principals states that all persons involved in the commission of a crime are equally culpable. A principal may be connected to those crimes for which he has the requisite mental state. State v. Brooks, supra.

Evidence

The state presented the testimony of four of the teenagers who witnessed the shooting. They included the sister and stepsister of the victim and Terrance Washington, the young man who was wounded. While there were numerous discrepancies between their various accounts of the shooting, they all generally agreed that the defendant’s vehicle almost struck members of their group who were walking in the street. Several indicated that the vehicle “swerved” at or “veered” toward them. When the teens reacted by yelling at the vehicle as it passed, it stopped and backed up. The witnesses agreed that words were exchanged between the vehicle occupants and the teenagers, after which the vehicle drove off. There was disagreement among the witnesses as to who spoke to the occupants, what was said, and the manner in which the words were spoken. In their testimony, only one of the teen witnesses admitted that profanity was used. However, the detective who took their statements shortly after the shooting said most of the kids indicated that there was profanity. Although Terrance stated in his testimony that he did not argue with the SUV passenger and that he did not recall telling the police that he exchanged profanities with the SUV passenger, the detective who took his statement at the hospital testified that Terrance told him that he had gotten into an argument with the SUV passenger. Also, two of the other teen witnesses testified that Terrance yelled at the SUV occupants about almost hitting them.

All of the teen witnesses agreed that their group stayed at the park for about 10 minutes. They then began walking down Ledbetter Street again. The white Equinox returned, came to a complete stop, and the passenger began to shoot. Three of the four teen witnesses testified that there were four to five shots fired. The vehicle then “crept off’ slowly. It did not speed off, but drove away “like nothing ever happened.”

The state also introduced the two statements the defendant made to the police, as well as his grand jury testimony. In his first statement, which was given the night of the shooting, the defendant recounted picking up his nephew at about 4:30 p.m. They came upon kids in the street screaming and yelling. He said that his nephew was almost hit by a young man and that he backed up to talk to the young man, who was saying to Evans “you got a gun, you want to use it, go ahead on.” According to the first portion of the defendant’s statement, someone shot at them as they were leaving and Evans fired back. The defendant said he did not know where Evans got the gun because he had taken it from him the day before. The defendant said that he screamed and yelled at Evans af-terwards, but that he did not know anyone had been shot.

In the same statement, the defendant then indicated that there were actually two confrontations. After the first one, he took Evans home. However, he decided that they needed to go back to talk to the guys. When he drove up, the young people began walking toward the vehicle. He was letting his -window down when shots were fired and then Evans fired. He said he shook Evans after he fired the shots and that he was upset. He took Evans home. As to the gun, he said he had taken it away from Evans due to his temper. However, when he picked him up from work that day, he told Evans, “your gun is right here ... just go on and take it.”

In his second statement which was given on November 30, 2007, the defendant said that he gave Evans the gun at the store they went to after the initial confrontation. The defendant again said he was the one who wanted to go back to “get it straight with these guys.” As they were leaving the store, he told Evans his gun was right there and to take it because the defendant’s wife did not want it in the car. He told Evans they were going to go straight to Evans’ house because he feared retaliation. However, when they turned around to go back, there were guys on his side of the vehicle. When he went to roll down his window to talk to them, he heard shots and “took off.” The defendant said he drove off because he panicked and he didn’t know who was shooting. He did not recall saying anything to Evans after the shooting.

In this second statement, the defendant stated that he wanted Evans to “be a man, to go back and take care of the situation.” By that, he said he meant to be man enough to apologize. He wanted to go back to apologize himself so Evans would be man enough to apologize. He insisted that they did not go back with the intention to “do anything” and that he gave the gun back to Evans to put it up. He also stated that he never thought Evans would do what he did. He maintained that he did not tell Evans to use the gun and that he wanted to show Evans how to resolve conflict without violence.

In his grand jury testimony, the defendant gave a more detailed account of the events. He stated that since Evans did not have a driver’s license, he would give him a ride home from his job at the airport. He testified that on the day of the offense, he picked up Evans and was driving him home when they came upon a big crowd of kids in the street. The defendant estimated that the group consisted of approximately 20 to 25 teens between the ages of 14 to 18. He had to stop because they would not move. He put his window down. One young man was “acting up,” jumping up and down, flashing what he believed were gang signs. The young man accused the defendant of almost hitting his cousin. Evans lowered his window to talk to the cousin. The young man on the defendant’s side of the car looked at Evans and said, “Hey, man, if you have a gun, use it.” Evans told the young man, “Ya’ll were in the middle of the street.” The young man called Evans “a little bitch ass n — -r.”

According to the defendant’s grand jury testimony, the road cleared and he drove off. He took Evans to get cigarettes at a corner store. He decided that they should go back and apologize because he feared some sort of retaliation against Evans, who lived in the area. When he drove up to the group, he was rolling to a stop when he heard two shots coming from his right. He did not completely stop. After the shooting, he drove Evans home but did not say anything to him other than they would talk later. When Evans called him from the police station that night and a detective asked him to come in, the defendant did not drive the SUV used in the shooting to the station.

In his grand jury testimony, the defendant said he took the gun from Evans the day before the shooting due to the young man’s “bad temper.” Evans told him that the gun was jamming; the defendant said later in his testimony that he was going to have the gun looked at but decided he needed to get the gun out of the vehicle before his wife saw it. The defendant testified that he told Evans to put the gun in the car console. He denied telling Evans to get his gun and put it up because his wife wanted it out of the car or saying that he wanted Evans to take his own responsibility. He testified that he did not discuss the gun with Evans, much less give it back. He then said that they did discuss the gun at the airport when he picked Evans up and that this was the only discussion they had about the gun. The defendant testified that he told Evans the gun was still in the console and to make sure he got it before he got out of the vehicle. According to the defendant, Evans knew where the gun was because it was still where Evans placed it the day before. He conceded that he did not call the police after the shooting; he said his cell phone was dead. However, he further admitted that he did not call 911 when he got home.

While Evans invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and declined to testify at the defendant’s trial, the defense introduced a January 2008 letter written by Evans in which he stated that his uncle did not know he was going to shoot because he did not know himself that he was going to fire the gun. However, the state then presented as impeachment evidence the two statements Evans gave to the police in which he indicated that the defendant gave him the gun or access to it.

Discussion

After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of second degree murder. In order to convict him of second degree murder, the jury had to conclude that the defendant acted as a principal to Evans either when he acted with the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, or when Evans committed a drive-by shooting.

The teen witnesses to the shooting gave generally consistent accounts of the shooting wherein there was an initial confrontation with the SUV occupants which was followed by a second encounter only 10 minutes later when the SUV returned. During the subsequent incident, the SUV came to a complete stop, and the passenger opened fire. One of the two persons shot just happened to be the young man who previously exchanged words with the passenger. The SUV then drove off slowly. This testimony depicts a deliberate and retaliatory shooting by the SUV occupants.

In contrast, the defendant asserted that he never completely stopped the SUV and “took off’ after the shooting because he panicked. He initially claimed that someone in the group of teenagers fired at the SUV and that his nephew fired back in response. He then contended that he did not realize where the shots came from before finally admitting that his nephew, who was seated next to him, fired them. The defendant gave several inconsistent statements as to how Evans came back into possession of the gun, which the defendant admitted “taking away” from him the day before due to his “bad temper.” Furthermore, by his own admission, the defendant fled the scene, did not stop to render aid to the wounded, and never called the police to report the shooting. See State v. Meyers, 95-750, 96-35, 96-395 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/26/96), 683 So.2d 1378, writs denied, 97-0015 (La.5/9/97), 693 So.2d 766, 98-2530 (La.2/5/99), 737 So.2d 745, 2000-0995 (La.12/8/00), 775 So.2d 1079. In the defendant’s versions of the offense, he sought out the teens who were involved in the prior incident as part of a noble — but failed — lesson in conflict resolution, and it was merely a tragic coincidence that Evans regained access to the gun in close proximity to the time of the shooting and that one of the two people shot was the young man who angered Evans.

Faced with these two wildly divergent accounts of the fatal shooting, the jury was required to make credibility determinations. It obviously resolved them against the defendant, whose three accounts of the incident contained numerous inconsistencies. Such credibility evaluations are within the province of the trier of fact. Even if we totally discount Evans’ statements, which are discussed in detail infra, the other evidence presented at trial is sufficient to conclude that the defendant was a principal to a deliberate and retaliatory drive-by shooting which was aimed at the young man who was wounded, but which also resulted in the senseless death of Ms. Wiley.

This assignment of error lacks merit.

USE OF CODEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS

In this assignment of error, the defendant asserts that he was denied his right of confrontation when the state referred to the substance of Evans’ second police statement during its rebuttal closing argument, wherein the state claimed that the statement was the “ringing evidence” in the case. The defendant also complains that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that they could consider the substance of Evans’ prior statements.

The state contends that Evans’ second statement to the police was used during closing argument to attack the credibility of Evans’ written statement. The state utilized Evans’ second statement to simply note the differences in the statements, thereby attacking Evans’ credibility. The state further argues that the defendant did not timely object to the state’s closing argument or the jury instructions.

Evans’ statements

On the night of the offense, Evans gave two statements to the police. In the first one, he told numerous versions of what happened. He initially said he was not involved and that a cousin had borrowed his gun two days before the shooting. In the next version, he claimed that a bunch of kids surrounded the vehicle he and his uncle were in and that he fired twice after hearing a shot. He asserted that he was “shooting to avoid a situation.” He said he threw the gun in the river. He stated that his uncle had nothing to do with the incident; they just happened to be together at the time. Later in the first statement, he said he left the gun in the vehicle the day before. His uncle took it out of the back and told him “here’s your gun, make sure you take it to the house.”

In Evans’ second statement, which was given after the police took the defendant’s first statement, he recounted a crowd blocking the street. Girls were pounding on the vehicle and a “dude” was hollering “if you got your gun, you better shoot it.” When they returned down the street, he was going to get out of the truck and fight, but he heard a gunshot and got his gun from his uncle.

According to Evans, his uncle wanted to go back to “see what they gonna do.” After the first confrontation, his uncle took him to the store to get cigarettes. When he came out of the store, his uncle had his gun and told him that he could use it here if he got into any trouble. Evans said after he got his gun from his uncle, he put it in the middle console. He stated that his uncle told him, “I got your back one hundred percent, however you feel.” Evans recounted that the defendant also said “if you gotta use it, you can use it, you know; don’t be stupid; it’s only if you need to use it.” After the shooting, his uncle took him home but did not yell at him or shake him. All his uncle said to him was that he didn’t know Evans was going to shoot.

In January 2008, Evans wrote a letter in which he asked that all charges against the defendant be dropped because he did not know what was going to happen.

At trial, Evans declined to testify. The defendant moved to admit Evans’ January 2008 letter into evidence. In response, the state sought to admit his two prior statements to the police, which were inconsistent with each other and the letter. The trial court granted both sides’ motions, specifically providing that Evans’ two statements to the police were admissible to attack his credibility under La. C.E. art. 806. The defendant filed a writ application in this court challenging that ruling. We concluded that the trial court correctly determined that the evidence was admissible under La. C.E. art. 806.

Law

La. C.E. art. 806 states:

When a hearsay statement, or a statement defined in Article 801(D)(2)(C) or (D)(3), has been admitted in evidence, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked, and if attacked may be supported, by any evidence which would be admissible for those purposes if declar-ant had testified as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declar-ant at any time, offered to attack the declarant’s credibility, is not subject to any requirement that he may have been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. If the party against whom a hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party is entitled to examine him on the statement as a witness identified with an adverse party.

In relevant part, La. C. Cr. P. art. 841 provides:

A. An irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence. A bill of exceptions to h ¿rulings or orders is unnecessary. It is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which he desires the court to take, or of his objections to the action of the court, and the grounds therefor.

La. C. Cr. P. art. 841 applies to alleged errors during closing arguments. State v. Williams, 46,674 (La.App.2d Cir.12/14/11) 81 So.3d 220. It also applies to any errors in jury charges. State v. Belgard, 410 So.2d 720 (La.1982); State v. Robinson, 45,820 (La.App.2d Cir.1/26/11) 57 So.3d 1107, writ denied, 2011-0381 (La.9/16/11), 69 So.3d 1141.

Discussion

Evans’ statements to the police on the night of the offense were admissible at trial to attack the credibility of his written statement made in January 2008. After the defense admitted Evans’ written statement in an attempt to prove that the defendant had no knowledge that Evans would fire his weapon, the state properly introduced Evans’ statements to the police which contradicted that assertion. When the state was preparing to provide a redacted version of Evans’ statements, so that only the relevant portions which contradicted his written statement would be disclosed to the jury, the defense agreed to play the entirety of Evans’ statements to the jury. Thereafter, the defense cross-examined the lead detective about the substance of Evans’ statements to police. The defense never objected to the state’s reference to the substance of the statements during closing arguments. Additionally, the defense never objected to the jury instructions. Therefore, under La. C. Cr. P. art. 841, the defendant is precluded from complaining about the state’s closing argument or the jury instructions on appeal.

This assignment has no merit.

LAW OF PRINCIPALS IN STATE’S CLOSING ARGUMENT AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS

The defendant contends that the state’s closing argument and the trial court’s jury instructions on the law of principals may have confused the jury and improperly allowed it to find him guilty of second degree murder without the requisite proof of specific intent and on the basis of “impeachment evidence” alone.

The defendant never timely objected to any portion of the state’s closing argument. Additionally, he was given ample opportunity to review and object to any of the proposed jury instructions; he explicitly stated that the instructions were acceptable. Therefore, under La. C. Cr. P. art. 841, the defendant cannot raise these alleged errors on appeal.

This assignment of error lacks merit.

BATSON CHALLENGE

In this assignment of error, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his Batson challenge, asserting that he demonstrated a prima facie case of discriminatory strikes on behalf of the state. He points out that 11 of the 12 peremptory challenges utilized by the state were against African-Americans. The defendant also alleges that there are ample circumstances to raise an inference that the state’s peremptory strikes were used on prospective jurors based on the fact that they were African-American. In support of his claim, he alleges that there were no adequate race-neutral reasons for the state to strike four particular prospective African-American jurors. He requests a remand for an evidentiary hearing at which the prosecutor would be required to provide reasons for the peremptory strikes of African-American jurors.

Law

It is well settled that the use of peremptory challenges based solely on a juror’s race is prohibited. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Louisiana law codified the Batson ruling in La. C. Cr. P. art. 795.

The three-step Batson process was described in Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 126 S.Ct. 969, 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006), as follows:

A defendant’s Batson challenge to a peremptory strike requires a three-step inquiry. First, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has made a prima facie showing that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge on the basis of race. Second, if the showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to present a race-neutral explanation for striking the juror in question. Although the prosecutor must present a comprehensible reason, the second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible; so long as the reason is not inherently discriminatory, it suffices. Third, the court must then determine whether the defendant has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination. This final step involves evaluating the persuasiveness of the justification proffered by the prosecutor, but the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike. [Internal quotations and citations omitted.]

To establish a prima facie case, the objecting party must show: (1) the striking party’s challenge was directed at a member of a cognizable group; (2) the challenge was peremptory rather than for cause; and (3) relevant circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the peremptory was used to strike the venireper-son on account of his being a member of that cognizable group. If the trial court determines the opponent failed to establish the threshold requirement of a prima facie case (step one), then the analysis is at an end and the burden never shifts to the proponent of the strike to articulate neutral reasons (step two). State v. Nelson, 2010-1724 (La.3/13/12), 85 So.3d 21.

In State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), 655 So.2d 272, the supreme court outlined a multifactor approach for determining whether a prima facie case has been made:

The defendant may offer any facts relevant to the question of the prosecutor’s discriminatory intent to satisfy this burden. Such facts include, but are not limited to, a pattern of strikes by a prosecutor against members of a suspect class, statements or actions of the prosecutor which support an inference that the exercise of peremptory strikes was motivated by impermissible considerations, the composition of the venire and of the jury finally empaneled, and any other disparate impact upon the suspect class which is alleged to be the victim of purposeful discrimination.

No formula exists for determining whether the defense has established a pri-ma facie case of purposeful racial discrimination. A trial judge may take into account not only whether a pattern of strikes against African-American venirepersons has emerged during voir dire but also whether the prosecutor’s questions and statements during voir dire examination and in exercising his challenges may support or refute an inference of discriminatory purpose. State v. Jacobs, 1999-0991 (La.5/15/01), 803 So.2d 933, 958, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1087, 122 S.Ct. 826, 151 L.Ed.2d 707 (2002). Batson accords a trial court considerable flexibility and broad discretion in this regard because “trial judges, experienced in supervising voir dire, will be able to decide if the circumstances concerning the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges create a prima facie ease of discrimination against black jurors.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. at 1723; State v. Jacobs, supra.

Bare statistics alone are insufficient to support a prima facie case of discrimination. Furthermore, the value of numbers alone, without any indication of the race or gender composition of the jury selected or the pool from which it was drawn, is limited at best. State v. Holand, 2011-0974 (La.11/18/11), — So.3d -, 2011 WL 6153193, cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2682, 183 L.Ed.2d 48 (2012).

The trial court plays a unique role in the dynamics of voir dire, for it is the court that observes firsthand the demeanor of the attorneys and venire persons, the nuances of questions asked, the racial composition of the venire, and the general atmosphere of the voir dire that simply cannot be replicated from a cold transcript. See State v. Jones, 42,531 (La.App.2d Cir.11/7/07), 968 So.2d 1247.

The trial court’s determination that the defense failed to set forth a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination merits great deference on appeal. State v. Tucker, 591 So.2d 1208 (La.App. 2d Cir.1991), writ denied, 594 So.2d 1317 (La.1992). The trial court’s ruling regarding whether there was any discriminatory intent in the state’s peremptory challenges is reviewed with great deference. State v. Robinson, 46,737 (La.App. 2d Cir.12/14/11), 79 So.3d 1270, writ denied, 2012-0487 (La.8/22/12), 97 So.3d 378.

|21 Voir dire proceedings

At the conclusion of jury selection, the defense made a Batson challenge, noting that almost every peremptory challenge used by the state was utilized to remove African-American prospective jurors. The state then raised a reverse-Batson challenge based on the defense’s removal of Caucasian prospective jurors. The trial court noted that the jury was composed of five Caucasians and seven African-Americans; the alternates were one Caucasian and one African-American. Each party had used all 12 of its peremptory challenges. Based on the fact that seven of the jurors were African-American, the trial court determined that there was no prima facie showing that the peremptory challenges by the state were made on the basis of race.

Counsel for the defense stated that he had to “burn up all of my peremptory challenges to balance out this particular situation.” Based on the defense’s claim that it had to “balance out” the jury, the trial court found a prima facie case that the defense had used its peremptory chai-lenges to exclude prospective jurors on the basis of their race. The defense was then required to give race-neutral reasons for its peremptory challenges against Caucasian prospective jurors. The defense’s reasons for excusing two prospective Caucasian jurors were based on their “body language” and “unresponsive” answers. The trial court indicated that the defense’s race-neutral reasons for challenging these two prospective jurors were weak, but denied the reverse-Batson challenge.

Both parties requested a stay in the case in order to seek supervisory review of the trial court’s rulings. This court denied both writ applications on the showing made. The state sought supervisory review with the Louisiana Supreme Court, which granted the writ application and remanded the matter to the trial court for reseating of the two Caucasian prospective jurors. See State v. Mason, 2011-1866 (La.8/29/11), 68 So.3d 513. This caused the composition of the jury to change to five African-Americans and seven Caucasians as the last two jurors to be accepted on the panel, both of whom were African-American, were removed. However, the parties agreed to accept the two of them as the alternates. The defense’s motion for mistrial was denied.

Discussion

We find that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s Batson challenge because he failed to present a prima facie case of racial discrimination. The defendant’s only evidence to raise the inference of discrimination was the state’s use of 11 of its 12 peremptory challenges to excuse African-Americans. However, at the time the defendant made his challenge, a majority of the jurors, seven of the 12, were African-American. The state also agreed to have an African-American as one of the two alternates.

Furthermore, our review of the transcript of the voir dire proceedings does not reveal any inference of racial discrimination on the part of the state during voir dire. In fact, although the state was not required to provide race-neutral reasons for its challenges, the record discloses race-neutral reasons for a majority of the jurors struck by the state, including the ones cited by the defendant in his brief. Mandel Davis was the victim of a burglary who was dissatisfied with the state’s handling of the case; he also had a relative who was serving time in prison for a drug charge. Marcus Clark had a family member who was incarcerated for carrying a firearm as a convicted felon. Joyce McGaskey stated during voir dire that she was concerned that she had been told at work that she would not be paid while she was serving as a juror and she had concerns about paying her rent. Herbert Lee Dotson exhibited some confusion about the burden of proof.

This assignment of error is meritless.

CONCLUSION

The defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

      . The evidence indicates that there was at least one young child with the group.

      . Evans also told the police where he hid the gun; it was recovered, and ballistic testing confirmed that it was the murder weapon.

      . He described the console as not being enclosed and as having a shelf upon which the gun was placed.