State of Louisiana Versus Cory W. Wall

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 21-KA-716

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

CORY W. WALL COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 18-6301, DIVISION "E"
HONORABLE FRANK A. BRINDISI, JUDGE PRESIDING

December 07, 2022

FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson

AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
FHW
JGG
MEJ

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Thomas J. Butler
Monique Nolan
Joshua K. Vanderhooft
Matthew Whitworth

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
CORY WALL
Bertha M. Hillman

WICKER, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction for purse snatching in violation of La. R.S.

14:65.1. On appeal, defendant complains that the failure to include the responsive

verdict of theft in violation of La. R.S. 14:67 is an error patent on the face of the

record requiring reversal of his conviction. Because we find that defendant failed

to request the responsive verdict or to object to the exclusion of the responsive

verdict of theft at trial, we find that defendant has waived the issue for appeal.1

Therefore, we affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence.

Statement of the Case

On October 2, 2018, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of

information charging defendant, Cory W. Wall, with one count of purse snatching

in violation of La. R.S. 14:65.1. Defendant pled not guilty at his arraignment on

January 25, 2019. On July 26, 2021, the State filed a “Motion for Special Jury

Instruction and Incorporated Memorandum in Support,” which the trial court

granted.2

The matter proceeded to trial before a six-person jury on July 27, 2021.

Defendant was found guilty as charged on that date and was subsequently

sentenced to twenty years imprisonment at hard labor. On August 4, 2021, the

State filed a multiple offender bill of information, to which defendant stipulated,

alleging defendant to be a third-felony offender. On that same date, the trial judge

vacated the original sentence and, pursuant to the plea agreement, resentenced

1
Alternatively, defendant asks this Court to remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing on his claims of
alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. We find that this assignment of error concerning ineffective
assistance of counsel would be more appropriately asserted in a separate application for post-conviction
relief and, thus, we decline to address that issue.
2
In that motion, the State requested the following special jury instruction:

A snatching is a sudden seizure. Snatching does not require an actual face-to-face confrontation and
snatching does not require that the use of force or intimidation be employed. The State need only show that
force or intimidation or snatching was used to accomplish the theft of something of value from the purse
that is within the immediate control of the person. There is no requirement that the victim know at the time
of the taking that her property is taken or snatched.
State v. Anderson, 418 So.2d 551 (La. 1982); State v. Fitch, 17-614 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/11/18), 244 So.3d
885.

21-KA-716 1

defendant as a third-felony offender under La. R.S. 15:529.1 to twenty-five years

imprisonment in the Department of Corrections.3 4 This timely appeal followed.

Factual Background

This case involves a May 15, 2018 purse snatching that occurred in the

parking lot of a Budget Saver in Jefferson Parish. Following the incident, a witness

followed a vehicle believed to be associated with the offense while on the phone

with a 9-1-1 dispatcher.

The victim, Sandy Cortez, testified at trial that her friend from work, David

Dupre, drove her to the grocery store every Tuesday. She testified that in May

2018, Mr. Dupre drove her to the Budget Saver in Jefferson Parish and that she

shopped inside the store by herself for approximately 15 minutes. Ms. Cortez

testified that after she completed her shopping, she began loading her groceries in

the back seat of Mr. Dupre’s truck. She explained that because she had a lot of

groceries to unload, she placed her purse on the passenger seat of Mr. Dupre’s

truck. She further explained that her purse was right next to where she was

standing and that she could have grabbed the purse at any time.

Ms. Cortez recalled that, while she was loading the groceries into the truck,

a man walking in the parking lot passed her from the “back” and the two greeted

each other. She further recalled picking her head up shortly thereafter and seeing

the same man pass by the truck again. Shortly thereafter, she noticed two women,

who were on the “other side” from her, “hollering” that the man had her purse. She

testified that she then looked down and noticed that her purse was missing.

Ms. Cortez testified that she spoke with police officers about the incident

and told them that she did not see anyone take her purse. She explained that

3
The trial court also ordered the sentence to run concurrently with any other sentence defendant was
presently serving.
4
This Court has held that when the trial judge orders that a defendant is sentenced to the “Department of
Corrections,” the sentence is necessarily at hard labor. State v. Jamison, 17-49 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/17/17),
222 So.3d 908, 909 n.2.

21-KA-716 2

Detective James Chapman showed her a photograph and that she identified the

person in the photograph as the person she saw in the parking lot who greeted her

prior to the crime. Ms. Cortez also identified herself and her purse in a

surveillance video from the Budget Saver on that day. She testified that her beige

purse contained her Samsung Galaxy cell phone, a Michael Kors keychain, and her

identity theft wallet, which contained $100.00 to $125.00 in cash, her credit cards,

her ID, and lottery tickets.5

Mr. Dupre testified that in May 2018, he drove Ms. Cortez, who did not

drive, to the Budget Saver on “Barataria and Lapalco” in Marrero. He stated that

he stayed inside his GMC pickup while Ms. Cortez went inside to get groceries.

At some point in time while he waited for Ms. Cortez to return, he saw a male

individual walking in the parking lot. He first recalled seeing that individual pass

by his truck while he was looking down and “fooling” with his phone. He

described seeing the man for “maybe like a split second” and that the man waved

to him. He testified that he saw the same individual several cars away from him

about ten to fifteen minutes later. He testified that, at that time, he believed that the

individual was looking for his vehicle.

Mr. Dupre testified that while Ms. Cortez loaded her groceries, at some

point he looked up and stared at the women parked on the next row because he

thought he recognized one of them. He indicated that one of the women got out of

her car and tried to say something to him. Once he opened the door, the woman

said, “That man just took that lady’s purse.” Then, Ms. Cortez also said to him,

“That man just took my purse.” Mr. Dupre denied seeing anyone running away

from the vehicle. Mr. Dupre identified defendant as the individual he saw walking

around the parking lot prior to the crime. He testified that he identified defendant

5
Ms. Cortez testified that she did locate and retrieve her cell phone in the “Woodmere” subdivision.

21-KA-716 3

because he “looked like” the individual walking in the parking lot but reiterated

that he did not see the individual who took the purse.

Harlee Deluca testified that in May 2018, after getting coffee with her

husband, the two drove through a parking lot that included the Budget Saver.

While their vehicle was stopped, Ms. Deluca saw a man with a light-colored purse

under his arm running fast through the parking lot. She stated that it appeared “like

he just stole it.” She described the individual as a tall black man of medium build

wearing average, casual clothes. She confirmed that she was in the passenger seat

of the vehicle, that it was daylight, and that her view of the man about 20 feet away

was unobstructed.

Ms. Deluca testified that she and her husband followed the individual and

observed him enter a silver Mercedes vehicle. She confirmed that the driver of the

vehicle was the same person she saw running with the cream-colored purse and

that there were no other occupants in the vehicle. Ms. Deluca testified that she

decided to call 9-1-1 as she and her husband followed the individual. While on the

phone with 9-1-1, Ms. Deluca and her husband followed the Mercedes onto

Lapalco Blvd. towards the Lapalco Bridge. She later explained that while on

Lapalco, there were two to three vehicles between her vehicle and the Mercedes.

She stated that they were “held up” at a stoplight, and they decided not to follow

the vehicle once they observed the Mercedes turn from Lapalco onto Paxton Street.

Sergeant Shane Taylor with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office testified

that on May 15, 2018, he was involved in an investigation regarding a reported

purse snatching. He testified that the incident was reported in two 9-1-1 calls—the

first call from an individual following the alleged perpetrator’s vehicle and the

second call from the Budget Saver on “Barataria and Lapalco.” He testified that a

21-KA-716 4

comment in the Tiburon report6 indicated that the first caller who followed the

vehicle described it as a silver Mercedes with a “black rag top” headed towards the

Lapalco Bridge. The 9-1-1 caller advised the dispatcher that the vehicle turned

right onto Paxton Street. Sergeant Taylor testified that the vehicle then “hit on the

ALPR [Automatic License Plate Recognition]7” on “Paxton and Spencer.”8

Sergeant Taylor testified that the vehicle’s registration listed defendant, Cory Wall,

as the owner of the silver Mercedes. Sergeant Taylor testified that he assisted in

executing a search warrant for defendant’s vehicle and residence and that the

search occurred more than a week after the crime was committed. He denied that

any items of evidence were recovered. In a photograph, he also identified

defendant’s vehicle as a silver Mercedes with a black convertible top. He

confirmed that the vehicle and the first three digits of its license plate matched the

description provided by the 9-1-1 caller.

Sergeant Taylor relayed that defendant did not admit to committing a

purse snatching at the Budget Saver on May 15, 2018. He testified that, after he

interviewed defendant, he had a “casual conversation” with defendant in his office.

He testified that he showed defendant the still photographs from the Budget

Saver’s security footage and that defendant identified himself in the photographs as

an individual in the parking lot. He later agreed that defendant did not identify

himself as the individual who stole the purse.9

6
Sergeant Taylor explained that the Tiburon report is a Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (JPSO) report that
reflects information being entered into its electronic system when an initial 9-1-1 call is received, which is
then relayed to patrol deputies that are on the dispatch channel. He explained that information is received
by the call taker and then is sent to dispatch, which then “calls it out” to the patrol division over the radio.
7
Sergeant Taylor explained that “ALPR” is an automated license plate recognition camera system that
photographs license plates at different intersections. He further explained that the ALPR system captures
pictures of vehicles in search of stolen vehicles and automatically runs license plate information through
the state’s office of motor vehicles’ system.
8
He indicated that a later comment on the report meant that a patrol deputy with the unit handling the initial
call changed the signal from a “65P,” which is a purse snatching, to a “62C,” which is a vehicle burglary.
He testified that the patrol deputy made this “call” and that the investigation bureau was not involved.
9
Sergeant Taylor said that it did not surprise him that the victim’s purse and its contents were not recovered
because it was typical that “it gets thrown or passed around to somebody else and [they] never find it.”

21-KA-716 5

Detective Chapman with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office testified

that in May 2018, he became involved in the investigation of a purse snatching.10

During his investigation, Detective Chapman learned about a license plate

potentially involved in the incident based on the Tiburon report and the 9-1-1 calls.

He explained that another detective listened to the radio traffic and ran the ALPR

system based on information, including the direction of the vehicle’s travel and the

vehicle’s partial plate number provided by the anonymous witness. From that

information, that detective observed a silver convertible with a black top and was

able to view the vehicle’s entire license plate. Based on this information, Detective

Chapman ran the plate through their databases and discovered that the vehicle was

registered to defendant.

Detective Chapman provided that he retrieved video surveillance footage

from the Budget Saver and it was played for the jury. In the video, he identified

the victim with her purse as she walked out of the store. Detective Chapman

explained that another individual could be seen walking, “standing right here and

passing back and forth, right there.” The detective relayed that the individual was

walking back and heading towards the victim’s vehicle. The detective stated,

“That’s him, he walked past the vehicle, she’s at the vehicle; he stops here. Now he

runs.” He also said, “Now he runs…He came back again. He runs this way and you

don’t see him again after that. But he ran in the direction where the anonymous

witness saw him.”11 On cross-examination, Detective Chapman acknowledged

10
He testified that as a member of the burglary unit, he became the follow-up detective when a road deputy
reduced the signal to a vehicle burglary.
11
Detective Chapman further testified that around “14:18:42” in the video, a convertible with a black rag
top could be seen pulling into a parking space on the front row. He pointed out that at “14:19:42,” an
individual “came from where the car was parked” and that the same male that entered the store was now
exiting the store. He narrated that at “14:22,” the vehicle pulled out of the parking space and exited the lot
in the direction of Lapalco. Detective Chapman stated that the same individual could be seen returning to
the parking lot at about “14:30.” He denied seeing the silver convertible return to the parking lot. He pointed
out that the individual came from the direction that the vehicle exited the parking lot. Detective Chapman
relayed that he saw the individual further back in the parking lot at another point in the video.

21-KA-716 6

that he was unable to determine the make or model of the perpetrator’s vehicle

from the surveillance video.

Discussion

In his sole assignment of error on appeal, defendant argues that the trial

court’s failure to include theft as a responsive verdict, and to instruct the jury on

the statutory definition of this crime, was reversible error. For the following

reasons, although we do find that theft is a proper responsive verdict to the crime

of purse snatching, we find that defendant failed to object to the exclusion of the

responsive verdict and has thus waived this issue for consideration on appeal.

La. R.S. 14:65.1 defines the crime of purse snatching as follows:

Purse snatching is the theft of anything of value contained within a
purse or wallet at the time of the theft, from the person of another or
which is in the immediate control of another, by use of force,
intimidation, or by snatching, but not armed with a dangerous weapon.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 814 does not mandate responsive verdicts for the crime of purse

snatching, and thus, La. C.Cr.P. art. 815 applies. Therefore, the applicable

responsive verdicts as set forth in La. C.Cr.P. art. 815 are: (1) guilty; (2) guilty of a

lesser and included grade of the offense even though the offense charged is a

felony, and the lesser offense a misdemeanor; or (3) not guilty.

Louisiana law has recognized that theft is a lesser and included offense of

purse snatching. “[A]ll essential elements of the crime of theft are included in the

crime of purse snatching: (1) the theft, (2) of anything of value contained within a

purse or wallet at the time of the theft, (3) from the person of another or which is in

the immediate control of another, (4) by use of force, intimidation, or by

snatching, i.e., without the consent of another. As such, theft is clearly a lesser and

included offense of purse snatching.” State v. Marts, 98-0099 (La. App. 4 Cir.

21-KA-716 7

5/31/00), 765 So.2d 438, 445; see also State v. Randel, 573 So.2d 616, 619 (La.

App. 2d Cir.1991) (“Theft is an essential element of purse snatching….”).12

However, La. C.Cr. P. art. 841 provides, “An irregularity or error cannot be

availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.” The

purpose of the requirement of a contemporaneous objection is to put the trial judge

on notice of an alleged irregularity so that he or she may cure a legitimate problem

and prevent the defendant from gambling for a favorable verdict and then resorting

to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by an objection. State v.

Devillier, 17-572 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/17/18), 258 So.3d 230, 261, writ denied, 18-

01855 (La. 10/8/19), 280 So.3d 589. For instance, a party may not assign as error

the giving or failure to give a jury charge or any portion thereof unless an objection

thereto is made before the jury retires or within such time as the court may

reasonably cure the alleged error. La. C.Cr.P. art. 801(C).

The record in this case reflects that defendant failed to make a timely

objection to the trial court’s exclusion of theft as a responsive verdict to the

charged crime of purse snatching. State v. Morris, 05-290 (La. App. 5 Cir.

11/29/05), 917 So.2d 633, 641. At the conclusion of trial, the trial judge instructed

the jury that it could find defendant guilty as charged of purse snatching, guilty of

attempted purse snatching, or not guilty of purse snatching. The record does not

reflect that defendant lodged a contemporaneous objection to that charge.

Defendant contends on appeal that failure to include a proper responsive

verdict is an error patent on the face of the record that must be corrected on appeal

12
The Supreme Court has held that “snatching” does not require an actual face-to-face confrontation, and
is distinguished from “use of force” and “intimidation” by the statute’s very wording. State v.
Anderson, 418 So.2d 551 (La. 1982). “The state need only show that force or intimidation or snatching
was used to accomplish the theft of something of value from the purse that is within the immediate control
or on the person.” State v. Marts, 98–0099 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/31/00), 765 So.2d 438, 444 (emphasis in
original); see also State v. Boss, 03-133 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/03), 848 So.2d 75, 78, writ denied, 03-1968
(La. 5/14/04), 872 So. 2d 508; State v. Harrche, 11-183 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/13/11), 81 So.3d 861, 866, writ
denied sub nom. State ex rel. Harrche v. State, 12-0342 (La. 8/22/12), 97 So.3d 372.

21-KA-716 8

pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 920. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court has

instructed that an “alleged error concerning the sufficiency of the list of responsive

verdicts given the jury, like error in the judge’s charge to the jury, is not

reviewable under Art. 920(2) and may not be considered unless objection is made

in the trial court in time for the trial judge to correct the error.” State v. Craddock,

307 So.2d 342, 343 (La. 1975); see also Morris, 917 So.2d 633.

Accordingly, for the reasons provided, we find that defendant failed to

object to the exclusion of theft as a responsive verdict for the crime of purse

snatching and, thus, has waived this argument on appeal. Consequently, we affirm

defendant’s conviction and sentence.13

ERRORS PATENT DISCUSSION

This Court routinely reviews the record for errors patent in accordance with

La. C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); and State v.

Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1990), regardless of whether defendant

makes such a request.

Waiver of Delay

La. C.Cr.P. art. 873 requires a twenty-four-hour delay in sentencing after the

denial of a motion for new trial unless the defendant waives the delay. When the

defendant challenges the penalty imposed and the imposed sentence is not

mandatory, the failure to observe the twenty-four-hour delay mandated by law

cannot be considered harmless error. State v. Chester, 19-363 (La. App. 5 Cir.

2/3/21), 314 So.3d 914, 944, writ denied, 21-350 (La. 6/8/21), 317 So.3d 321.

However, when the original sentence has been set aside in a habitual offender

proceeding, the failure to observe the twenty-four-hour delay is harmless. See State

13
As stated previously, defendant asks alternatively that this Court remand this matter for an evidentiary
hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We find that this assignment of error concerning
ineffective assistance of counsel would be more appropriately asserted in a separate application for post-
conviction relief and, thus, we decline to address that issue.

21-KA-716 9

v. Cummings, 10-891 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 386, 404, writ denied,

11-2607 (La. 4/9/12), 85 So.3d 693.

On August 4, 2021, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for post-verdict

judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial. Later that same day, defendant’s

original sentence was imposed. He stipulated to being a multiple offender and his

original sentence was vacated before his enhanced sentence was imposed.

Therefore, despite the trial court’s failure to observe the twenty-four-hour delay in

sentencing, we find the error harmless because defendant’s original sentence was

set aside in a habitual offender proceeding. See State v. Cummings, supra.

Post-Conviction Relief Advisal

A review of the transcript of the proceedings on August 4, 2021 reveals that

the trial judge did not advise defendant of the prescriptive period for filing post-

conviction relief after his original sentencing or after defendant was resentenced

following his stipulation as a third-felony offender on that date. However, the

sentencing minute entry indicates that defendant was advised after his original and

enhanced sentencing that “he has thirty (30) days from today’s date to appeal this

conviction, and two (2) years after judgment of conviction and sentence has

become final to seek post-conviction relief.” When a discrepancy exists between

the minute entry and the transcript, the transcript generally prevails. State v.

Lynch, 441 So.2d 732, 734 (La. 1983).

If the trial court fails to advise, or provides an incomplete advisal, pursuant

to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8, the appellate court may correct this error by informing the

defendant of the applicable prescriptive period for post-conviction relief by means

of its opinion. See State v. Perez, 17-119 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/30/17), 227 So.3d 864,

870. Therefore, we hereby advise defendant that no application for post-conviction

relief, including applications that seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if

21-KA-716 10

it is filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has

become final under the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. arts. 914 or 922.

Multiple Bill Sentence-Restrictions

Defendant received an enhanced sentence of twenty-five years in the

Department of Corrections as a multiple offender. However, the transcript does not

reflect that defendant’s enhanced sentence was to be served without benefit of

probation or suspension of sentence in accordance with La. R.S. 15:529.1(G).

Under State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La. 11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, 799, and La. R.S.

15:301.1(A), the “without benefits” provision is self-activating. See State v. Esteen,

01-879 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/15/02), 821 So.2d 60, 78-79, writ denied, 02-1540 (La.

12/13/02), 831 So.2d 983. However, the record reflects neither the multiple

offender State of Louisiana Uniform Commitment Order (UCO) or the sentencing

minute entry reflect the imposition of these restrictions nor does it reflect that the

entire sentence is to be served without benefit of probation or suspension of

sentence. See State v. Woods, 15-247 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/23/15), 176 So.3d 672.

To ensure accuracy in the record, we hereby remand this matter to the trial

court, direct the trial court to make the appropriate entries reflecting these changes,

and direct the Clerk of Court for the 24th Judicial District Court to transmit the

original of the corrected uniform commitment order to the officer in charge of the

institution to which defendant has been sentenced and to the Department of

Corrections’ Legal Department. See State v. Lyons, 13-564 (La. App. 5 Cir.

1/31/14), 134 So.3d 36, 41, writ denied, 14-0481 (La. 11/7/14), 152 So.3d 170; La.

C.Cr.P. art. 892(B)(2); State ex rel. Roland v. State, 06-244 (La. 9/15/06), 937

So.2d 846.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS

21-KA-716 11

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
INTERIM CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON LINDA M. WISEMAN
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
DECEMBER 7, 2022 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

21-KA-716
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE FRANK A. BRINDISI (DISTRICT JUDGE)
MONIQUE D. NOLAN (APPELLEE) THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE) BERTHA M. HILLMAN (APPELLANT)

MAILED
NO ATTORNEYS WERE MAILED