State of Louisiana Versus Alonzo W. Ford AKA "lonnie" AKA "lon" AKA "lonz" AKA "big Ford"

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-KA-197

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

ALONZO W. FORD AKA “LONNIE” AKA COURT OF APPEAL
“LON” AKA “LONZ” AKA “BIG FORD”
STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 19-4350, DIVISION "C"
HONORABLE JUNE B. DARENSBURG, JUDGE PRESIDING

February 26, 2025

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY
CHIEF JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Jude G. Gravois, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED
SMC
JGG
JJM

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Thomas J. Butler
Andrea F. Long
Kristen Landrieu
Leo M. Aaron

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
ALONZO FORD
Prentice L. White

DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
ALONZO W. FORD
In Proper Person

CHEHARDY, C.J.

Defendant, Alonzo W. Ford, appeals his convictions and sentences for

second-degree murder, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and

obstruction of justice. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Ford’s convictions

and sentences.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 25, 2019, a Jefferson Parish Grand Jury indicted defendant, Alonzo

W. Ford a/k/a “Lonnie” a/k/a “Lon” a/k/a “Lonz” a/k/a “Big Ford” (“Ford”), with

attempted second-degree murder in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S.

14:30.1 (count one), two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in

violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (counts two and four), two counts of obstruction of

justice in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1 (counts three and five), and two counts of

second-degree murder in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 (counts six and seven).

Ford was arraigned on July 31, 2019, and pled not guilty to all counts. On

September 16, 2019, the State amended the indictment to remove one of the

predicate convictions from both count two and count four. On May 25, 2022, Ford

filed a motion to sever that was denied the next day after a hearing.

On November 27, 2023, the case proceeded to trial before a twelve-person

jury, and on November 30, 2023, the jury found Ford not guilty on count one and

guilty as charged on counts two through seven. On January 9, 2024, defense

counsel filed a motion for new trial and a motion for post-verdict judgment of

acquittal. Ford filed a pro se motion for new trial and motion for post-verdict

judgment of acquittal on January 10, 2024.

On January 11, 2024, the trial court denied the motions for new trial and the

motions for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. After defense counsel waived

sentencing delays, the trial court sentenced Ford to imprisonment at hard labor for

twenty years each on counts two and four (possession of firearm), imprisonment at

24-KA-197 1

hard labor for forty years each on counts three and five (obstruction of justice), and

life imprisonment at hard labor each on counts six and seven (second-degree

murder). The trial court ordered the sentences on counts two, four, six, and seven

to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. It also

ordered the sentences on counts two, three, four, and five to run concurrently with

each other. The trial court further ordered the sentence on count six to run

consecutively to the sentences on counts two, three, four, and five. It ordered the

sentence on count seven to run consecutively to the other sentences.

On January 15, 2024, defense counsel filed a timely motion for appeal that

was granted on January 18, 2024.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

At trial, the State presented testimony and other evidence in an attempt to

establish that defendant, Alonzo Ford, shot and killed Martin Hatten on March 30,

2019, and Lawrence Hensley on April 1, 2019; that he was a convicted felon who

could not lawfully possess a firearm; and that he committed obstruction of justice

in connection with each killing.

Detective Anthony Buttone

Detective Buttone of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (JPSO) testified

that he investigated the homicide of Martin Hatten that occurred in the early

morning hours of March 30, 2019.1 He explained that patrol personnel responded

to the shooting at 6221 Second Avenue in Marrero, Louisiana, where they found

Hatten, who had a gunshot wound to his head, and James Steib, who sustained a

minor gunshot wound to his neck after the bullet passed through Hatten’s head.

Detective Buttone further explained that, based on Hatten’s injuries, he and other

homicide detectives were notified and proceeded to the scene. He asserted that the

1
JPSO Detective Kyle Nugent testified at trial that an incident report was generated by a 9-1-1 call
that was made at 2:41:10 on March 30, 2019.

24-KA-197 2

two victims had already been transported to the hospital by the time he arrived.2

Detective Buttone indicated that the shooting occurred inside a gold Dodge

Durango, which was parked in front of the residence on Second Avenue.

Detective Buttone explained that they found evidence at the scene, namely, a

driver’s license or identification card for Steib, a crack pipe, a projectile on the

ground, and a plastic baggy, which he advised was commonly used for narcotics

sales. He stated that because no casing was located, which was rare, they believed

a revolver was used in the shooting. Detective Buttone testified that detectives

secured video surveillance from a neighborhood residence that captured the

shooting and the individual, who was later identified as defendant, Alonzo Ford,

walking to the vehicle prior to the shooting.

Detective Buttone testified that they interviewed Steib once he was released

from the hospital. Detective Buttone recalled Steib informing them that he was

present for the shooting; that an individual named Ken Mayeaux was getting into

the vehicle at the time of the shooting; and that Hatten was in the front passenger

seat of the vehicle. Steib also told Detective Buttone that he had intended to take

Mayeaux to the Siesta Motel. He further recalled Steib stating that when he got

into the car and tried to start the vehicle, a shot rang out and that he felt pain.

Detective Buttone testified that Steib identified Ford as the shooter.

Detective Buttone further testified that based on this information, they

located Mayeaux and interviewed him. Detective Buttone claimed that Mayeaux

identified the same people in the vehicle and told him that, prior to entering the

back seat behind Hatten, he saw Ford, with whom he shook hands. Detective

Buttone stated that Mayeaux advised that as he was getting into the vehicle, a shot

rang out just as he was closing the door. Detective Buttone stated that during the

2
He stated that Hatten was alive at that time but later died. Dr. Ellen Connor testified that on April
8, 2019, she performed the autopsy of Hatten. She concluded that Hatten died as a result of a gunshot
wound to the head and that the manner of death was homicide.

24-KA-197 3

interview, Mayeaux provided them with the phone number of a man named Aaron

Drummond,3 after which they obtained a search warrant for real-time GPS

locations from the provider.

According to Detective Buttone, Mayeaux also provided them with a

description of a vehicle that arrived at his motel after the shooting.4 Detective

Buttone explained that they tracked the phone and located that vehicle at the end of

Manhattan Boulevard past Lapalco Boulevard. He stated that they conducted an

investigatory stop of that vehicle, inside of which was Drummond, who was

operating the vehicle, and Drummond’s girlfriend. He testified that Drummond

and his girlfriend were brought to the investigation bureau for purposes of

obtaining their statements. Detective Buttone maintained that Drummond

informed him that he was not present for the shooting of Hatten or Steib.

Detective Buttone recalled that Drummond told him that following the

shooting, he received a call from Mayeaux, who told Drummond about the

shooting and that Ford was responsible for it. Detective Buttone asserted that

Drummond said that he went to Ford’s residence on Garden Road in Marrero and

picked him up, after which the two of them went to the Siesta Motel to visit

Mayeaux. He said that Drummond claimed that during the drive, Ford admitted to

him that he shot Hatten.5 Detective Buttone provided that Drummond told him that

when they arrived at the Siesta Motel, Ford talked to Mayeaux, after which

Drummond and Ford left. He further asserted that they obtained Ford’s phone

number from Drummond at that time. Detective Buttone testified that they sent a

search warrant to the provider in an attempt to get the real-time GPS location.

3
Detective Buttone testified that they originally thought the number was for Ford, but that it
actually belonged to Drummond.
4
There was no testimony as to the make or model of this vehicle.
5
At trial, Drummond denied telling law enforcement that Ford shot the gun. Also, Detective
Buttone testified that one week prior to trial, he learned of a letter written by Drummond wherein he
claimed that the statement he had given to law enforcement was not true and that he had been threatened
by the JPSO that they would take his son away from him if he did not give a statement.

24-KA-197 4

Detective Buttone further testified that Mayeaux, Drummond, and Steib

viewed six-person photographic lineups and positively identified Ford as the

shooter of Hatten. He averred that during the investigation, they received

information from Kimberly Fluker, Hatten’s fiancée, who told them that prior the

shooting, Hatten and another individual were involved in a verbal altercation

outside the business of “Tinnies” or “O on the Boulevard.” According to Detective

Buttone, Fluker claimed that the altercation started when this individual hit on her

and asked her for a cigarette. Detective Buttone testified that after showing Fluker

a photographic lineup, she positively identified Ford as the person involved in the

verbal altercation with Hattan before the shooting.6

Detective Buttone provided that they obtained a search warrant for Ford’s

residence on Garden Road in Marrero but found no evidence. He stated that while

they were there, they told Ford’s mother that they had an arrest warrant for Ford,

after which she called Ford and allowed Detective Buttone to talk to him.

According to Detective Buttone, although Ford told him he would surrender, he

never did. Ford’s mother then gave them the phone number Ford was calling from

and with that they prepared a search warrant to obtain the real-time GPS location

from the provider. He explained that they began getting pings or location data, and

thereafter, enlisted the JPSO Strategic Engagement Team (“SET”) to find and

apprehend Ford.

SET Detective Patrick Evans

Detective Evans testified that on April 1, 2019, the SET was advised that the

last location of the ping received from Ford’s phone was at a car wash located at

Acre Road and Buccola Avenue in Marrero. He stated that when he pulled up to

the car wash, he saw an individual who he believed was Ford wearing a brown

hoodie standing in the second stall from Buccola Avenue. Detective Evans

6
Fluker testified similarly at trial.

24-KA-197 5

explained that Ford was standing on the passenger rear side of a red or maroon

Toyota pickup truck speaking to a black male wearing a baseball cap.

Detective Evans testified that he let his team members know that he saw an

individual fitting Ford’s description at the car wash. Detective Evans stated that he

drove around the block and circled back around. He explained that as he did so,

the red truck was pulling onto Acre Road and going toward Cohen Street.

Detective Evans noticed that in the same stall there was a gentleman seated against

the wall next to the passenger side where the red truck was, slumped over, and his

hat was down. Detective Evans explained that he believed Ford had left in the red

truck, so he advised his team where the truck was going. He stated that once he

learned the man had been shot, he started to secure the scene. The victim was later

identified as Lawrence Hensley.7

Detective William Roniger

Detective Roniger testified that he was called to the scene of a homicide on

April 1, 2019. He explained that a person was shot at the car wash on Acre Road

and transported to the hospital, but later died.8 Detective Roniger asserted that no

casings were found at the car wash. He also asserted that Ford was apprehended a

short distance away in the 1200 block of Cohen Street. Detective Roniger averred

that Ford’s clothing, shoes, wallet, and the firearm believed to be the murder

weapon were recovered from that scene.9 He recalled that the gun was located

7
Detective Buttone testified that they believed Hensley was killed because he witnessed the
homicide of Hatten. He stated that during the investigation, everyone indicated that Ford was responsible
for Hatten’s homicide.

8
Dr. Ellen Connor testified that she performed an autopsy on Hensley on April 4, 2019. She
further testified that he died as a result of a gunshot wound to his head and that the manner of death was
homicide.
9
Although Detective Roniger testified that this was the “murder weapon,” the test results were
inconclusive. Former JPSO Deputy Jene Rauch was accepted as an expert in the field of firearms and
toolmark examinations. She testified that she test fired the gun, which had one casing and two live
rounds when recovered, and compared the projectile from the Second Avenue homicide to the firearm.
Deputy Rauch testified that “[a]lthough Specimen No. 1 possessed the same general class characteristics
as the Smith and Wesson revolver, meaning that they were both .38-cailber class, both had five lands and
grooves with a right twist. They did not possess sufficient individual characteristics for any further
conclusion to be made.”

24-KA-197 6

along a fence line a few feet from where Ford was placed under arrest. He stated

that when they located the red truck on Cohen Street, Trameeka Mosely and

Danielle Landry were in the truck with Ford. All three were brought to the

detective bureau.

Detective Roniger testified that he interviewed Ford regarding the April 1,

2019 shooting, and Detective Buttone testified that he interviewed Ford regarding

the March 30, 2019 shooting. The interviews yielded one statement, which was

audio and video recorded. In his statement, Ford denied responsibility for either of

the shootings.10

Detective Roniger further testified that they obtained a search warrant for the

red truck and that it was later executed. An Academy Sports bag containing

various items was found on the back seat of the truck. Detective Roniger

explained that this was significant because Ford and the two females were later

found on video stealing those items from Academy Sports earlier that day. He

stated that Ford was wearing the same clothes at Academy that he was wearing

when he was arrested. He also stated that when Ford was arrested, his shoes were

collected as they matched the shoes he was wearing in the Academy video.

Detective Roniger recalled listening to a jail call Ford made to two

associates wherein Ford directed them to the same location where the detectives

recovered the firearm believed to be the murder weapon. Detective Buttone

testified that during the investigation, he also listened to Ford’s jail calls.

Specifically, he stated there was a call made from the jail on April 12, 2019, where

Ford and Drummond discussed two witnesses and a firearm. Detective Buttone

10
The video was played for the jury. In his statement, Ford denied that he committed the shootings;
that he was in the area of Second Avenue at 2:30 a.m.; that he was in or near a red truck; that he was at
the car wash; or that he was with two females stealing items from stores. Ford claimed that Steib had his
phone. He had no explanation why the video showed him at the vehicle during the first shooting or why
people identified him as saying he shot the victims.
Also, Detective Buttone testified that Ford stated he was at a bar called Smithy’s around the time
of the first homicide until 5:00 a.m. However, Detective Buttone explained that he spoke to the bar
manager, who told him that bar was closed at 3:00 a.m.

24-KA-197 7

explained that in that same call, Ford tried to describe the area to Drummond

where the firearm was located. Detective Buttone stated that in another call made

to an unknown female on April 4, 2019, it appeared that they were referring to

Mayeaux and the intent to possibly harm him. During that call, Ford referred to

“Slim” (Steib) and “Cracker” (Mayeaux)11 stating, “Kill’em.”12

SET Sergeant Wayne Rumore

Sergeant Rumore testified that a ping from Ford’s phone placed Ford on

Acre Road off of Ames Boulevard in Marrero near a car wash, so he proceeded to

that area to look for Ford. He stated that he located the red/maroon truck parked at

a house on Cohen Street. He claimed that upon seeing law enforcement, Ford fled

on foot down an alleyway, and Trooper David Webster followed him. While he

fled, Ford discarded several items, including a firearm and his sweatshirt.

Trooper David Webster

Trooper Webster testified that on April 1, 2019, he was a member of the

JPSO’s SET team and, based on a cell phone ping, along with other officers, he

was trying to locate and apprehend Ford. He was travelling behind Sergeant

Rumore when the sergeant located Ford’s truck on Cohen Street. As soon as he

got out of his vehicle and Ford spotted them, Ford took off on foot running down

an alleyway next to a residence. Trooper Webster testified that he proceeded to

give chase on foot to apprehend Ford. In the processing of fleeing, Ford discarded

a shoe, a hat, a wallet containing his identification, among other things, and a cell

phone. He explained that he found Ford, who had already discarded his jacket,

squatting down near the front right wheel of a vehicle parked in a driveway,

attempting to shove something underneath the wheel well. Trooper Webster

testified that he placed Ford in handcuffs, read him his rights, and transferred him

11
Detective Buttone indicated that Mayeaux was also known as “Cracker” and “White Boy.” He
stated that Mayeaux was the only white individual involved in the investigations.
12
This phone call was played for the jury.

24-KA-197 8

to the homicide detectives. Trooper Webster stated that he retrieved Ford’s jacket,

which was located next to the vehicle where he apprehended Ford. He did not find

a gun on Ford’s person.

Detective Adrian Thompson

Detective Thompson, Narcotics Division, is a K9 handler for the JPSO. He

testified that his K9 is a munition’s detection canine, who locates firearms that

have recently been fired, spent shell casings, live ammunition, loaded firearms, and

a number of other explosive odors. He further testified that on April 1, 2019, he

was dispatched with his K9 to the scene of where Trooper Webster had chased

Ford in order to search the area for the murder weapon. The K9 ultimately located

the firearm hidden in the overgrown grass adjacent to a chain-linked fence.

James Steib

Steib testified that, in the spring of 2019, he lived at 6221 Second Street with

his grandmother. He stated that it was considered the neighborhood drug house

and that a shooting occurred one night outside the house. He further testified that,

on that occasion, he pulled up to the house in a car. He was in the driver’s seat,

that his partner (Hatten) was in the front passenger seat, and that “White Boy”

(Mayeaux) got in the back seat. Steib claimed that he heard a “pow” and that when

he looked, he saw the bullet come out of his partner’s head and hit him. Steib

testified that he called 9-1-1. He denied that he told law enforcement that Ford

shot the gun. He also denied seeing Ford at the car prior to the shooting. Steib

further testified regarding his own prior convictions.

Ken Mayeaux

Ken Mayeaux’s testimony at trial was similar to that of Detective Buttone.

Mayeaux testified that he walked to Steib’s house to buy drugs; that Steib did not

have any drugs; and that Steib (“Slim”) agreed to drop him off at his motel.

Mayeaux further testified that right before he got into the vehicle, he saw Ford

24-KA-197 9

standing next to the vehicle on the passenger side; that Mayeaux got into the back

seat of the vehicle and shut the door; that he heard a “pop;” that Steib jumped out

and said, “You shot me;” that he looked in the front seat and saw the man in the

passenger seat’s head to the side; and that he walked out in the street and waited

for the police. Mayeaux claimed that he did not see who shot the victim. He

asserted that later that morning, Ford and Drummond (“Wax”) came to his motel

room; however, he could not remember what they talked about. Mayeaux stated

that he positively identified Ford in a photographic lineup as the person standing

next to the vehicle on the passenger front side when the victim was shot. He was

shown a video, and in it, identified himself, Ford, and others by the car near Steib’s

house. Mayeaux testified that the video also showed the shot and Steib jumping

out of the vehicle saying he was shot. He also testified regarding his own prior

convictions.

Carl Kennedy

Kennedy testified that the victim of the second homicide, Lawrence

Hensley, was his second cousin. He stated that he had been incarcerated with

Ford, and that Ford told him he was in jail for “two-and-a-half murders.” Kennedy

asserted that Ford claimed he shot and killed a victim, explaining that the bullet

went through that victim and hit the second victim while they were in a car or a

truck. Kennedy claimed that Ford also told him he killed someone else.

Kennedy provided that, in regards to the second murder, Ford told him that

he and two females were in a truck; that they were shoplifting; that they went to a

car wash; that Hensley was with them; and that they were using drugs. Kennedy

recalled that Ford told him that he and Hensley “got into it” and that Ford shot

Hensley in the head. Kennedy also recalled that Ford told him that the police

followed him, after which he got rid of the weapon. Kennedy admitted to several

24-KA-197 10

prior convictions; however, he testified that the State never told him that they

would dismiss his simple escape charge in exchange for testifying at trial.13

Aaron Drummond

Drummond testified that he was Ford’s friend; that Mayeaux called him after

Hatten’s murder; that he found out something happened on Second Street; that he

met with Ford that day; and that he and Ford went to Mayeaux’s residence.

Drummond further testified that he talked to law enforcement after the two

murders. He denied that he told law enforcement that Ford told him he was going

to kill Hensley. He claimed that law enforcement forced him to say Ford shot

someone. Drummond stated that he wrote a letter indicating that the detectives

threatened him with information regarding his son. He admitted being at the car

wash when Hensley was killed. He further admitted that Ford, Trameeka Mosley,

and Danielle Landry were also at the car wash. Drummond testified that he did not

tell Hensley to leave because Ford wanted to kill him. He also testified regarding

his own prior convictions.

Joint Stipulations

The State and the defense stipulated that Ford was convicted of violating La.

R.S. 40:967(A), possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, on February 20,

1997, in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, case

number 96-7172, Division “S,” and that he completed his sentence on May 25,

2018. The State and the defense also stipulated that Ford was convicted of two

counts of violating La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:30.1, attempted second-degree

murder, on February 21, 1995, in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for the

13
Detective Buttone testified that they interviewed Kennedy, who was at the correctional center in
April and May of 2019. He stated that he learned that Ford and Kennedy were in the same cell at the
same time. He testified that he did not promise Kennedy anything in exchange for his information and
that he did not broker a deal to have one of Kennedy’s charges dismissed or reduced.

24-KA-197 11

Parish of Jefferson, case number 94-2419, Division “O,” and that he completed his

sentence on September 6, 1996.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On appeal, Ford raises two counseled assignments of error: (1) his

convictions and sentences were contrary to the weight of the evidence presented at

trial and should be reversed;14 and (2) the district court committed reversible error

when it improperly denied his motion to sever. In addition, Ford raises four pro se

assignments of error: (1) the State violated the constitutional mandates of Federal

Rules of Evidence, Rule 602; (2) the State violated the constitutional mandates

required by La. C.Cr.P. arts. 770(1)(2) and 771(1); (3) the State violated the

constitutional mandates required by the United States Constitution, Amend. V, and

the Louisiana Constitution, Art. I, § 15; and (4) the State violated the constitutional

mandates required by Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 402 and 103.

1. Insufficiency of Evidence

On appeal, Ford’s counsel argues the evidence was insufficient to support

his convictions as it did not conclusively prove that Ford was the shooter of either

Hatten or Hensley. Counsel asserts that the jury gave undue weight to the

testimony of the State’s alleged witnesses even though they had either lied to law

enforcement about Ford’s involvement in the shootings, or their recollection could

not be trusted because they were highly intoxicated or motivated to implicate Ford

to receive leniency from the State regarding their respective felony charges. He

further asserts there was no DNA evidence connecting Ford to the firearm found

by the police and that he was not in possession of a firearm at the time of his arrest.

14
Ford’s counsel contends that Ford’s convictions and sentences were contrary to the weight of the
evidence; however, counsel did not brief the issue regarding Ford’s sentences. Under Uniform Rules–
Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–12.4(B)(4), the Court may consider as abandoned any assignment of error or
issue for review which has not been briefed. State v. Kimble, 22-373 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/8/24), 389 So.3d
902, 907, writ denied, 24-882 (La. 12/27/24), 2024 WL 5232585. However, in his third pro se
assignment of error, Ford raised the excessiveness of his sentences.

24-KA-197 12

In response, the State avers that 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 crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. The State further

responds that the testimony and evidence at trial established that Ford was a

convicted felon, who could not lawfully possess a gun; that he fatally shot Hatten

on May 30, 2019, and Hensley on April 1, 2019; and, that he committed the crime

of obstruction of justice in relation to each murder. For these reasons, the State

maintains that Ford’s convictions and sentences should be affirmed.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must

determine that the evidence, whether direct, circumstantial, or a mixture of both,

viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a

rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime have been proven beyond

a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d

560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-674 (La. 6/29/01), 796 So.2d 649, 657, cert. denied,

535 U.S. 940, 122 S.Ct. 1323, 152 L.Ed.2d 231 (2002); State v. Robinson, 11-12

(La. App. 5 Cir. 12/29/11), 87 So.3d 881, 892-93, writ denied, 12-279 (La.

6/15/12), 90 So.3d 1059.

Evidence may be either direct or circumstantial. State v. Robertson, 22-363

(La. App. 5 Cir. 03/29/23), 360 So.3d 582, 590. When circumstantial evidence is

used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 provides, “assuming

every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must

exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” On appeal, the reviewing

court does not determine if another possible hypothesis suggested by the defendant

could afford an exculpatory explanation of the events. State v. Williams, 14-882

(La. App. 5 Cir. 5/14/15), 170 So.3d 1129, 1136, writ denied, 15-1198 (La.

5/27/16), 192 So.3d 741. Instead, the appellate court must evaluate the evidence in

a light most favorable to the State and determine whether the possible alternative

24-KA-197 13

hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found

proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Encompassed within proving the elements of an offense is the necessity of

proving the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator. State v. Garrison, 19-62

(La. App. 5 Cir. 4/23/20), 297 So.3d 190, 203, writ denied, 20-547 (La. 9/23/20),

301 So.3d 1190, cert. denied, - - U.S. - - , 141 S.Ct. 2864, 210 L.Ed.2d 967 (2021).

Where the key issue in the case is identification, the State is required to negate any

reasonable probability of misidentification in order to carry its burden of proof. Id.

at 204. Positive identification by only one witness is sufficient to support a

conviction. State v. Harrell, 19-371 (La. 7/08/20), 299 So.3d 1274, 1281. 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 to support a

requisite factual finding. State v. Benoit, 07-35 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/29/07), 960

So.2d 279, 284.

a. Second-Degree Murder

Ford was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder, defined, in

pertinent part, as the killing of a human being when the offender has a specific

intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. La. R.S. 14:30.1(A)(1).15 Specific intent

is “that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the

offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or

failure to act.” La. R.S. 14:10(1). Specific intent need not be proven as a fact, but

may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the offense and the conduct of

the defendant. Specific intent to kill may be inferred from a defendant’s act of

pointing a gun and firing at a person, as well as the extent and severity of the

15
The jury was instructed that in order to convict Ford of two counts of second-degree murder, it
had to find that he acted with the specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.

24-KA-197 14

victim’s injuries. State v. Thompson, 18-273 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/28/18), 259 So.3d

1257, 1266, writ denied, 18-2077 (La. 9/6/19), 278 So.3d 372.

Martin Hatten

Detective Buttone testified that they secured video surveillance that captured

the shooting and showed Ford walking to the vehicle prior to the shooting.

Mayeaux testified that right before he got into the back seat of Steib’s vehicle, he

saw Ford standing next to the vehicle on the passenger side. Hatten was sitting in

the front passenger seat of the vehicle. Mayeaux asserted that he got into the

vehicle, after which he heard a shot, looked in front, and saw Hatten’s head to the

side. Kennedy testified that Ford told him he shot and killed a victim, explaining

that the bullet went through that victim and hit the second victim while they were

in a car or a truck. Kennedy also testified that Ford admitted to him that he killed

another victim at a car wash. Also, Fluker testified that Ford and Hatten were

involved in a verbal altercation prior to the first shooting.

Additionally, Detective Buttone testified that Steib informed him that at the

time of the shooting, he was in the driver’s seat of the vehicle; that Mayeaux was

getting into the vehicle; and that Hatten was sitting in the front passenger seat.

Detective Buttone claimed that Steib said he then heard a shot, and felt pain. He

stated that Steib positively identified Ford as the shooter. Also, Detective Buttone

explained that Drummond said that Mayeaux told him Ford was responsible for the

shooting. He stated that Drummond also told him that when he and Ford were

driving to the Siesta Motel to visit Mayeaux, Ford admitted that he shot Hatten.

Based on our review, we find the evidence supports the jury’s conclusion

beyond a reasonable doubt that Ford had specific intent to kill when he pointed the

gun and fired at Hatten, who died from a gunshot wound to the head. See

Thompson, supra. The record shows that Ford knew that there was an arrest

warrant issued for him, but he failed to turn himself in even though he said he

24-KA-197 15

would. Further, the evidence establishes that he hid the weapon in his sweatshirt

while he was being pursued by law enforcement prior to his capture. Evidence of

flight, concealment, and attempt to avoid apprehension is relevant and admissible

to prove consciousness of guilt from which the trier-of-fact may infer guilt. State

v. Davis, 18-485 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/10/19), 269 So.3d 1123, 1132, writ denied, 19-

716 (La. 11/12/19), 282 So.3d 229. Ford placed a jailhouse call where it appears

he was directing two associates to the same location where the detectives

recovered the weapon. Ford placed another jailhouse call where it appears that he

gave directions to kill Steib and Mayeaux. Evidence regarding a defendant’s

attempt to threaten, kill, intimidate, or dissuade a witness from testifying is

admissible and relevant to show consciousness of guilt on the defendant’s part and

his desire to evade prosecution. State v. Butler, 15-89 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/29/15),

171 So.3d 1283, 1289, writ denied, 15-1608 (La. 10/10/16), 207 So.3d 408.

On appeal, Ford’s counsel argues the jury gave undue weight to the

testimony of the State’s witnesses despite the fact that they had either lied to law

enforcement or their recollection could not be trusted because they were

intoxicated or motivated to implicate Ford to receive leniency from the State

regarding their felony charges. We disagree. The jury heard the testimony and

clearly found the State’s witnesses to be credible, even though Steib and

Drummond changed their stories at trial. Where there is conflicting testimony as

to factual matters, the question of the credibility of the witnesses is within the

sound discretion of the trier of fact, who may accept or reject, in whole or in part,

the testimony of any witness. Reviewing courts will not re-weigh the credibility of

witnesses on appeal. State v. Rowan, 97-21 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/29/97), 694 So.2d

1052, 1056.

24-KA-197 16

For these reasons, we find that a rational trier of fact could have found

beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence was sufficient under the Jackson

standard to support Ford’s conviction for the second-degree murder of Hatten.

Lawrence Hensley

Detective Buttone testified that they obtained a search warrant for Ford’s

phone after the first murder and that they began getting pings or location data.

Detective Evans testified that the last location of the ping was at a car wash located

at Acre Road and Buccola Avenue in Marrero. He further testified that when he

went to the car wash, he observed a man he believed to be Ford wearing a brown

hooded sweatshirt standing on the passenger side of a red/maroon truck speaking

to a black male. Detective Evans circled around the block, and when he returned,

the truck was pulling out onto Acre Road and heading towards Cohen Street. He

saw the man Ford had been talking to seated against the wall and slumped over.

Detective Evans later learned that Hensley, the man he saw talking to Ford, had

been shot in the head.

Sergeant Rumore testified that after he located Ford, who wearing his brown

hooded sweatshirt, standing next to his red/maroon truck with two women on

Cohen Street, once Ford recognized him as law enforcement, Ford fled on foot

down an alleyway. Trooper Webster testified that he pursued Ford on foot down

the alley and that during the chase, Ford discarded a shoe, his hat, wallet, and a cell

phone. When he finally caught up to Ford, one or two lots over, Ford was

squatting next to the front wheel of a vehicle attempting to shove something into

the wheel well. After Trooper Webster handcuffed Ford and turned him over to

law enforcement, he retrieved Ford’s brown jacket located next to the car where he

found Ford. Detective Evans testified that he went to the scene and identified the

brown hooded sweatshirt or jacket that had been pulled out from under the car as

the one that Ford was wearing. Although Trooper Webster did not find a weapon

24-KA-197 17

on Ford, Detective Roniger testified that a gun was ultimately located along the

fence line a few feet from where Ford was placed under arrest. The revolver

contained one casing and two live rounds. Casings were not found at either crime

scene, indicating to law enforcement that a revolver had been used in both

homicides.

Kennedy testified that Ford told him that he and two females were in a truck,

that they were shoplifting, that they went to a car wash, that Hensley was with

them, and that they were using drugs. Kennedy further testified that Ford told him

that he and Hensley got into an argument, after which Ford shot Hensley in the

head. Kennedy recalled that Ford told him that the police followed him and that he

got rid of the weapon.

Additionally, the evidence at trial established that the red/maroon truck in

which Ford fled from the car wash was linked to a shoplifting incident at Academy

Sports hours before the shooting. Detective Roniger testified that the video

surveillance from Academy showed that the clothing that Ford was wearing at the

time (red shirt, red pants) was the same clothing Ford wore at the time of his

interview with detectives. Also, Drummond testified that he and Ford were at the

car wash along with Mosley and Landry, the two females that with Ford by the

truck on Cohen Street.

We find there is sufficient evidence for the jury to have found that Ford had

the specific intent to kill when he pointed the gun and fired at Hensley, who died

from a gunshot wound to the head. See Thompson, supra. Moreover, the jury

considered evidence that Ford fled from police, hid evidence, and made jailhouse

calls instructing associates to locate evidence and kill witnesses. Evidence of

flight, concealment, attempt to avoid apprehension, and attempt to kill witnesses is

relevant and admissible to show consciousness of guilt. See Davis, supra; Butler,

supra. For these reasons, we find that a rational trier of fact could have determined

24-KA-197 18

beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence was sufficient under the Jackson

standard to support Ford’s conviction of the second-degree murder of Hensley.

b. Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon

Ford was convicted of two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (counts two and four). To support a

conviction under La. R.S. 14:95.1, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that defendant had: (1) possession of a firearm; (2) a prior conviction for an

enumerated felony; (3) absence of the ten-year statutory period of limitation; and

(4) the general intent to commit the offense. State v. Woods, 23-41 (La. App. 5

Cir. 11/15/23), 376 So.3d 1144, 1156, writ denied, 23-1615 (La. 5/29/24), 385

So.3d 700. With respect to the third element, the State must prove that ten years

has not elapsed since the date of completion of the punishment for the prior felony

conviction. Id.

Actual possession of a firearm is not necessary to satisfy possession;

constructive possession is sufficient. State v. Johnson, 11-238 (La. App. 5 Cir.

12/28/11), 83 So.3d 1075, 1081. A person is in constructive possession of a

firearm if the firearm is subject to his dominion and control. State v. Johnson, 03-

1228 (La. 4/14/04), 870 So.2d 995, 998; State v. Mickel, 09-953 (La. App. 5 Cir.

5/11/10), 41 So.3d 532, 535, writ denied, 10-1357 (La. 1/7/11), 52 So.3d 885. A

person’s dominion over a weapon constitutes constructive possession even if it is

only temporary in nature and even if control is shared. Johnson, 03-1228, 870

So.2d at 999; State v. Harrell, 18-63 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/17/18), 258 So.3d 1007,

1012. A defendant’s mere presence in an area where a firearm was found does not

necessarily establish possession. State v. Perry, 17-567 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/27/18),

250 So.3d 1180, 1197, writ denied, 18-1325 (La. 11/14/18), 256 So.3d 285. The

State must also prove that the offender was aware that a firearm was in his

presence and that the offender had the intent to possess the weapon. Id. The

24-KA-197 19

question of whether there is sufficient possession to convict is dependent on the

facts of each case. Mickel, supra.

In the amended indictment, the State alleged in count two that on March 30,

2019, Ford violated La. R.S. 14:95.1 by possessing a handgun after having been

previously convicted on February 20, 1997, of possession with the intent to

distribute cocaine in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A), in case number 96-7172,

Division “S,” in the Twenty Fourth Judicial District Court. The State also alleged

in count two that Ford had a prior conviction on February 21, 1995, of two counts

of attempted second-degree murder in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S.

14:30.1, in case number 94-2419, Division “O,” in the Twenty Fourth Judicial

District Court. In that same amended indictment, the State alleged in count four

that on April 1, 2019, Ford violated La. R.S. 14:95.1 by possessing a handgun after

having been previously convicted of the same predicate convictions that were

listed above in count one.16

At trial, the State and defense counsel stipulated that Ford was convicted of

possession with the intent to distribute cocaine on February 20, 1997, and that he

completed his sentence on May 25, 2018. The State and defense counsel also

stipulated that Ford was convicted of two counts of attempted second-degree

murder on February 21, 1995, and that he completed his sentence on September 6,

1996.

Nevertheless, because more than ten years had elapsed since the date of

completion of the punishment for the prior felony conviction, the prior conviction

of two counts of attempted second-degree murder cannot be used as a predicate

conviction in either count two or count four. The State and defense counsel

16
The amended indictment reflects that the State alleged that Ford had two prior convictions for
each count. It appears that the State was permitted to do so. See State v. Jones, 22-527 (La. App. 5 Cir.
5/24/23), 366 So.3d 821, 833. (“Defendant was charged with violating La. R.S. 14:95.1, possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, and his two prior convictions were admissible for the purpose of proving
that defendant had a prior felony conviction.”).

24-KA-197 20

stipulated that Ford completed his sentence for those predicate convictions on

September 6, 1996; however, the instant offenses occurred in 2019. The prior

conviction of possession with intent to distribute cocaine can be used as a predicate

conviction in counts two and four because less than ten years has elapsed since the

completion of the punishment for the prior felony conviction. The State and

defense counsel stipulated that Ford completed his sentence for that predicate

conviction on May 25, 2018.

Regardless, based on our review of the record, we find that a rational trier of

fact could have found that the evidence was sufficient under the Jackson standard

to support Ford’s convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in

counts two and four. As previously discussed, the evidence was sufficient to

establish that Ford possessed a firearm to kill Hatten on March 30, 2019, and

Hensley on April 1, 2019, and that he later hid the firearm while fleeing from law

enforcement. The record further establishes that Ford had a prior conviction for

possession with intent to distribute cocaine, an enumerated felony, for counts two

and four. Further, the State and defense counsel stipulated that Ford completed his

sentence for that predicate conviction on May 25, 2018, which is less than ten

years from when the instant offenses occurred. Lastly, we find the record supports

a conclusion that Ford had the general intent to commit the offenses of possession

of a firearm by a convicted felon.

c. Obstruction of Justice

Ford was convicted of two counts of obstruction of justice in violation of La.

R.S. 14:130.1, which provides, in pertinent part:

A. The crime of obstruction of justice is any of the
following when committed with the knowledge that
such has, reasonably may, or will affect an actual or
potential, present, or future criminal proceeding as
described in this Section:

24-KA-197 21

(1) Tampering with evidence with the specific intent
of distorting the results of any criminal
investigation or proceeding which may reasonably
prove relevant to a criminal investigation or
proceeding. Tampering with evidence shall
include the intentional alteration, movement,
removal, or addition of any object or substance …

(a) At the location of any incident which the
perpetrator knows or has good reason to believe
will be the subject of any investigation by state,
local, or United States law enforcement
officers[.]

In count three, the State alleged that on March 30, 2019, Ford violated La.

R.S. 14:130.1 in that he obstructed justice by tampering with evidence, to wit:

taking the .38 caliber handgun he used to shoot Steib and Hatten from the scene of

the shooting. In count five, the State alleged that on April 1, 2019, Ford violated

La. R.S. 14:130.1 in that he obstructed justice by tampering with evidence, to wit:

taking the .38 caliber handgun he used to shoot Hensley from the scene of the

shooting and subsequently discarding it and/or discarding clothing that he was

wearing at the time he shot Hensley.

We find the evidence was sufficient under the Jackson standard to support

Ford’s conviction of two counts of obstruction of justice. First, as discussed

heretofore, the evidence was sufficient to establish that Ford shot both victims and

then left the crime scenes with the firearm—a revolver—which law enforcement

believed was the murder weapon. Additionally, Trooper Webster testified that

after the second shooting, he chased Ford down an alleyway and that as Ford fled,

he discarded several items along the way. When Trooper Webster caught up to

Ford, he witnessed Ford squatting down near the front right wheel of a vehicle,

shoving something underneath the wheel well. Detective Evans later identified the

item as the brown hooded sweatshirt Ford had been wearing. Detective Thompson

indicated that on April 1, 2019, he went to the scene of the chase, where his K9

found the firearm hidden in the overgrown grass near a chain-link fence. Also,

24-KA-197 22

Detective Roniger testified that he listened to a jail call Ford made to two

associates wherein he directed them to the same location where the detectives

recovered the firearm that they believed was the murder weapon.

In State v. Loggins, 23-519 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/30/24), --- So.3d ---, 2024

WL 4612601, this Court found that the State sufficiently established that the

defendant obstructed justice. Surveillance video from a gas station showed the

defendant leave with the murder weapon in his hand. The defendant later told his

brother that he threw his gun in a trash can at another gas station. Surveillance

video from that gas station depicted the defendant walking to the dumpster. This

Court found that although the firearm was never recovered, a reasonable juror

could conclude that by disposing of the firearm in a dumpster in another state, the

defendant was attempting to distort the results of any criminal investigation or

proceeding and avoid future criminal proceedings. We found that other actions by

the defendant supported an inference of his specific intent to obstruct justice,

including that the defendant took his clothing, poured bleach on it, and discarded

the clothing in someone else’s trash can in another parish.

Similarly, in State v. Lopez, 23-335 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/21/24), --- So.3d ---,

2024 WL 3885502, this Court upheld the defendant’s conviction for obstruction of

justice. In that case, the defendant fired shots from a vehicle. A witness testified

at trial that the defendant kept the gun when he exited the vehicle. While the

defendant fled to Florida, he was later apprehended, but the gun was never found.

In State v. McGinnis, 23-472 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/31/24), 392 So.3d 963, 977,

this Court upheld the defendant’s obstruction of justice conviction based on his

removal of the jacket he was wearing at the time of the murders. This Court found

that, based on the evidence presented at trial, a rational juror could have found that,

given the small amount of blood visible on the defendant’s clothing when he went

to the police, he likely believed that the clothes he continued to wear could not

24-KA-197 23

connect him to the shooting. This Court pointed out that the jury also appeared to

have found that surveillance video showed that the defendant had taken off his

jacket off at the scene immediately following the shooting.

Based on our review of the record in the instant case, we find the trial

testimony establishes that Ford fled both crime scenes with the firearm in his

possession, after which he discarded the firearm in the overgrown grass near a

fence line and attempted to hide his brown hooded sweatshirt in the wheel well of a

vehicle while he was being chased by law enforcement after the second shooting in

an attempt to avoid detection as the shooter and to distort the results of a criminal

investigation. This evidence is sufficient under the Jackson standard to support

Ford’s convictions of obstruction of justice.

This assignment of error is without merit.

2. Denial of Motions to Sever

Ford’s appellate counsel argues the district court erred by denying Ford’s

motion to sever the seven felony offenses. He contends the district court’s

decision jeopardized his defense and violated several of the Fortenberry, infra,

factors; namely, the jury became confused between the two police investigations

surrounding the two different shootings, the jury inferred a criminal disposition

from evidence that Ford supposedly participated in an Academy Sports shoplifting

scheme, and the exhausted jury became hostile towards Ford when the district

court forced the jury to deliberate until it reached a verdict.

In response, the State argues that the record shows that Ford failed to satisfy

his heavy burden of proof in order to establish prejudicial joinder of offenses. The

State asserts that the testimony and evidence related to the charged offenses of one

date would have been admissible at the trial of the offenses of the other date. It

points out that the trial judge stated that the two cases were so intertwined that they

needed to be tried together. The State maintains that the crimes were closely

24-KA-197 24

connected in time and place and that a single trial was warranted for the purpose of

narrative completeness and in the interest of judicial economy. It also avers that

the evidence was not complicated and that the testimony was presented in a logical

and organized manner. As such, the State concludes the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Ford’s motion to sever.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 493 permits the joinder of

offenses if the offenses charged “are of the same or similar character or are based

on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected

together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan,” and the offenses are

triable by the same mode of trial. A defendant properly charged in the same

indictment with two or more offenses pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 493 may

nonetheless move for a severance of the offenses under La. C.Cr.P. art. 495.1,

which provides that “[i]f it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a

joinder of offenses in an indictment or bill of information or by such joinder for

trial together, the court may order separate trials, grant a severance of offenses, or

provide whatever other relief justice requires.”

In determining whether prejudice results from a joinder of offenses, the

district court must consider the following factors: (1) whether the jury would be

confused by the various counts; (2) whether the jury would be able to segregate the

various charges and evidence; (3) whether the defendant would be confounded in

presenting his various defenses; (4) whether the crimes charged would be used by

the jury to infer a criminal disposition; and (5) whether, considering the nature of

the charges, the charging of several crimes would make the jury hostile. State v.

Molette, 17-697 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/17/18), 258 So.3d 1081, 1091, writ denied, 18-

1955 (La. 4/22/19), 268 So.3d 304 (citing State v. Fontenberry, 09-127 (La. App. 5

Cir. 10/27/09), 27 So.3d 904, 909-10, writ denied, 09-2665 (La. 5/28/10), 36 So.3d

246). In addition, it must be considered that prejudice from the joinder of offenses

24-KA-197 25

can be mitigated by clear jury instructions and by an orderly presentation of

evidence by the State. State v. Davis, 12-512 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/24/13), 115 So.3d

68, 84, writ denied, 13-1205 (La. 11/22/13), 126 So.3d 479.

A defendant alleging a prejudicial joinder of offenses bears a heavy burden

of proof. Motions to sever under La. C.Cr.P. art. 495.1 are within the sound

discretion of the district court, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent

an abuse of discretion. Factual, rather than conclusory, allegations are required

when the defendant alleges prejudicial joinder of offenses on a motion to sever.

Molette, supra (citing Fontenberry, 27 So.3d at 910). Finally, there is no

prejudicial effect from joinder of offenses when the evidence of each is relatively

simple and distinct, so that the jury can easily keep the evidence of each offense

separate in its deliberations. Butler, 171 So.3d at 1288. In ruling on such a

motion, the district court must weigh the possibility of prejudice to the defendant

against the important considerations of economical and expedient use of judicial

resources. State v. Deruise, 98-541 (La. 4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1232, cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 926, 122 S.Ct. 283, 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001).

Here, defense counsel filed a motion to sever on May 25, 2022, asking the

district court to sever counts one, two, three, and seven from counts four, five, and

six. Defense counsel argued that joinder of the counts would result in prejudice to

Ford. He asserted that the jury would have a difficult time distinguishing the

charges and the evidence, that the charges would be used by the jury to infer a

criminal disposition, and that the number and nature of the charges would provoke

jury hostility. Thereafter, the State filed a response asking the district court to

deny the motion to sever, arguing that the offenses should be tried together because

they were all committed in the course of the same criminal activity and at the same

24-KA-197 26

time. It further argued that evidence as to all of the charges would constitute

integral act evidence and be admissible under Prieur.17

A hearing on Ford’s motion to sever was held on May 26, 2022, at which

time defense counsel and the State argued their respective positions. Defense

counsel further argued that the La. R.S. 14:95.1 counts should be severed because

Ford was alleged to have prior predicate convictions for attempted murder that

supported those counts. At the close of the hearing, the trial judge denied Ford’s

motion to sever, finding that the same evidence would be presented in both cases

and that both cases were integrally connected.

After reviewing the record, we find the district court did not err by denying

Ford’s motion to sever. After the March 30, 2019 homicide of Hatten, an arrest

warrant was issued for Ford. The search for Ford led the JPSO to the car wash,

which was the location of the April 1, 2019 homicide of Hensley. Ford fled in a

truck following the second homicide, and law enforcement apprehended him and

retrieved the firearm he discarded. Additionally, Detective Buttone believed that

Hensley was present at the scene of the first homicide, thus providing a motive for

Hensley’s murder. Both murders occurred approximately two days apart, and only

a half mile separated the two crime scenes. In short, the crimes were closely

connected in both time and place. Thus, we find that one trial was warranted for

the purpose of narrative completeness and in the interest of judicial economy.

It also appears that the testimony and other evidence regarding the charged

offenses of March 30, 2019, would have been admissible at the trial of the charged

offenses of April 1, 2019. Further, the evidence was not complicated, and the

record reflects that the State presented it in a logical and organized manner such

that the jury was not confused and did not have difficulty separating the evidence

as to each charge. Both homicides had separate lead detectives, and each detective

17
State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La. 1973).

24-KA-197 27

questioned Ford separately without the presence of the other detective. Moreover,

the La. R.S. 14:95.1 counts were briefly presented by way of stipulation.

Significantly, the jury acquitted Ford of attempted second-degree murder on count

one, thus indicating that the jury was able to segregate the evidence.18

Considering the foregoing, we find the district court did not abuse its

discretion by denying Ford’s motion to sever the offenses. This assignment of

error is without merit.

3. Violation of the Constitutional Mandates of Federal Rules of Evidence,
Rule 602

Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 602, provides:

A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is
introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness
has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove
personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own
testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness’s expert
testimony under Rule 703.

In his first pro se assignment of error, Ford argues the State violated Rule

602 of the Federal Rules of Evidence by presenting testimony from James Steib,

Aaron Drummond, and Ken Mayeaux, when they lacked personal knowledge of

the incident for which they were called to testify.

The State responds that Ford’s state criminal trial was not governed by the

Federal Rules of Evidence and, further, that he cannot demonstrate that he is

entitled to relief under its Louisiana counterpart, La. C.E. art. 101. The State also

avers that this issue has not been preserved for appeal through the lodging of a

contemporaneous objection at trial pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 841(A). The State

further contends that Ford failed to satisfy the requirement of the Uniform Rules–

Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3, which provides that, unless the interest of justice

requires otherwise, Courts of Appeal shall review issues that were submitted to the

18
See State v. Seay, 521 So.2d 1206, 1210 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1988), where the first circuit found that
if the jury could keep the evidence of the offenses separate and distinct as evidenced by acquittal on some
and conviction on other charges, there is no prejudice.

24-KA-197 28

trial court. The State contends that even if this issue had been preserved for

review, Ford is not entitled to relief.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 841(A) provides:

An irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict
unless it was objected to at the time of the occurrence. A
bill of exceptions to 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.

A review of the trial transcript confirms that this issue has not been

preserved for appellate review because defense counsel failed to lodge a

contemporaneous objection under La. C.Cr.P. art. 841(A) at trial. Consequently,

we do not review this assignment of error.

4. Violation of Constitutional Mandates of La. C.Cr.P. arts. 770(1)(2) and
771(1).

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 770 states, in pertinent part:

Upon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered
when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of
the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official,
during the trial or in argument, refers directly or
indirectly to:

(1) Race, religion, color or national origin, if the
remark or comment is not material and relevant
and might create prejudice against the defendant in
the mind of the jury;

(2) Another crime committed or alleged to have been
committed by the defendant as to which evidence
is not admissible[.]

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 771(1) provides, in pertinent

part:

In the following cases, upon the request of the defendant
or the state, the court shall promptly admonish the jury to
disregard a remark or comment made during the trial, or
in argument within the hearing of the jury, when the
remark is irrelevant or immaterial and of such a nature

24-KA-197 29

that it might create prejudice against the defendant, or the
state, in the mind of the jury:

(1) When the remark or comment is made by the
judge, the district attorney, or a court official, and
the remark is not within the scope of Article 770[.]

***

In such cases, on motion of the defendant, the court may
grant a mistrial if is satisfied that an admonition is not
sufficient to assure the defendant a fair trial.

In this pro se assignment of error, Ford appears to argue that a mistrial

should have been ordered under La. C.Cr.P. arts 770(1) and (2), or the jury

admonished pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 771(1), when the State presented bad

character evidence before the defense had the opportunity to present good

character evidence. Ford contends the prosecutor became vindictive after each of

the State’s key witnesses recanted. Ford further asserts that the prosecutor told the

jury that he understood why those witnesses recanted, as they had seen Ford kill

and knew that Ford would, likewise, kill them.

In response, the State argues that Ford provides no specific citations to the

record in relation to the alleged comments, nor does the record on appeal reflect

that such comments were made. Further, the State argues that Ford does not direct

this Court to any specific objection lodged as to this issue or establish that a motion

for mistrial was ever made. The State also contends that the alleged error does not

implicate race, religion, color, or national origin as set forth in La. C.Cr.P. art.

770(1).

Our review of the trial transcript indicates that Ford is not entitled to the

relief he seeks, as the transcript does not contain the comments Ford alleges to

have been made. Further, there is no indication that an objection was lodged, that

a motion for mistrial was made, or that a request for an admonishment was made.

Consequently, we find that this assignment was not preserved for appellate review.

24-KA-197 30

5. Violations of the Constitutional Mandates of U.S. Const. Amend. V and
La. Const. Art. I, § 15

Ford argues the State violated the constitutional mandates required by U.S.

Const. Amend. V and the La. Const. art. I § 15. Specifically, Ford appears to argue

that his convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, second-degree

murder, and obstruction of justice constitute a double jeopardy violation because

all the crimes involved the same gun during the course of a single incident.

Additionally, Ford argues that his sentences were excessive. He contends that

separate sentences for the offenses committed during one sequential, continuing

course of conduct was nothing more than the needless imposition of pain and

suffering.

The State responds that Ford’s argument is evidently based upon an

erroneous interpretation of the principles of double jeopardy and has no merit. It

further responds that the sentences imposed were not excessive.

a. Double Jeopardy

While double jeopardy is most properly raised in a motion to quash, and

Ford did not file a motion to quash, the issue is still properly before this Court as

double jeopardy may be raised at any time. State v. Austin, 04-993 (La. App. 5

Cir. 3/1/05), 900 So.2d 867, 884, writ denied, 05-830 (La. 11/28/05), 916 So.2d

143. Further, a violation of double jeopardy apparent on the face of the record is

reviewable as an error patent. State v. Pike, 18-538 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/8/19), 273

So.3d 488, 500, writ denied, 19-927 (La. 2/10/20), 292 So.3d 60.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as Article I,

§ 15 of the Louisiana Constitution, prohibit placing a person twice in jeopardy of

life or limb for the same offense. See also La. C.Cr.P. art. 591. Double jeopardy

provisions are intended to protect an accused not only from a second prosecution

24-KA-197 31

for the same criminal act, but also multiple punishments for the same act. State v.

Lefeure, 00-1142 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/30/01), 778 So.2d 744, 750, writ denied, 01-

1440 (La. 9/21/01), 797 So.2d 669. However, it is well-settled that an accused

who commits separate and distinct offenses during the same criminal episode or

transaction may be prosecuted and convicted for each offense without violating the

prohibition against double jeopardy. State v. Stephens, 18-344 (La. App. 5 Cir.

12/5/18), 260 So.3d 776, 783.

The protections against double jeopardy mandated by the federal

constitution, as re-stated in this state’s constitution, fall within the analytical

framework set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180,

76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). See State v. Frank, 16-1160 (La. 10/18/17), 234 So.3d 27.

Under Blockburger, the question is whether the same act or transaction constitutes

a violation of two distinct statutory provisions. To determine whether there are

two offenses or only one, the pertinent question is whether each provision requires

proof of an additional fact, which the other does not. State v. Knowles, 392 So.2d

651, 654 (La. 1980); State v. Bridgewater, 98-658 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98), 726

So.2d 987, 991. “[A] defendant can be convicted of two offenses arising out of the

same criminal incident if each crime contains an element not found in the other.”

State v. Hampton, 17-383 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/15/17), 259 So.3d 1125, 1132

(quoting Frank, 234 So.3d at 30).19

19
Notably, Louisiana courts previously utilized two tests to analyze double jeopardy claims: (1) the
“distinct fact” or Blockburger test, set forth supra; and (2) the “same evidence” test. State v. Fairman,
15-67 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/23/15), 173 So.3d 1278, 1289. The same evidence test is broader in concept
than the Blockburger test. Lefeure, 778 So.2d at 751. However, the same evidence test previously
utilized by Louisiana courts to determine whether two crimes constituted the “same offense” for purposes
of double jeopardy was rejected by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Frank, supra, which proclaimed that
“the protections against double jeopardy mandated by the federal constitution, as restated in this state’s
constitution, fall within the analytical framework set forth in Blockburger, and Louisiana courts need only
apply that framework in analyzing questions of double jeopardy.” See Frank, 234 So.3d at 33-34. Thus,
the Louisiana Supreme Court has instructed Louisiana courts to dispense with Louisiana’s separate “same
evidence” test. See Frank, supra.

24-KA-197 32

Under Blockburger, courts are required to compare the two criminal statutes

at issue and ask “whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which

the other does not.” United States v. Singleton, 16 F.3d 1419, 1422 (5th Cir.

1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 924, 116 S.Ct. 324, 133 L.Ed.2d 225 (1995). If either

statute contains an element not also found in the other statute, the statutes “fail” the

Blockburger test, and the defendant may not be punished under both of them “in

the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.” Id. The two

statutory offenses need not be identical to constitute the same offense for double

jeopardy purposes. The Blockburger inquiry focuses on the statutory elements of

the offenses, not on their application to the facts of the specific case before the

court or on the actual evidence presented at trial. Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410,

416, 100 S.Ct. 2260, 2265, 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980).

In the case sub judice, in order to convict Ford of possession of a firearm by

a convicted felon, the State was required to prove that he intentionally possessed a

firearm and that he had been convicted of an enumerated felony within the last ten

years. See La. R.S. 14:95.1. The charge of obstruction of justice necessitated

proof that Ford tampered with evidence by the intentional alteration, movement,

removal, or addition of any object or substance, with the specific intent of

distorting the results of any criminal investigation or proceeding which may

reasonably prove relevant to a criminal investigation or proceeding. See La. R.S.

14:130.1. To prove second-degree murder, the State was required to prove the

killing of a human being when Ford had the specific intent to kill or to inflict great

bodily harm. Although the offenses involved the same firearm, Ford’s convictions

each required proof of a fact or facts that the others did not.

Additionally, although the two La. R.S. 14:95.1 incidents potentially

involved the same gun and involved the same predicate conviction, the shootings

happened on two separate dates. Further, Ford was charged with trying to obstruct

24-KA-197 33

two separate and distinct investigations, wherein the murders happened on two

separate days and involved two separate victims. Also, the La. R.S. 14:95.1

incidents involved predicate conviction elements that the other offenses did not;

the second-degree murder charges involved killings, and the obstruction of justice

charges involved the discarding of the firearm and the sweatshirt with the intent of

distorting the results of a criminal investigation.

For the foregoing reasons, we find that no double jeopardy violation

occurred. This assignment of error is without merit.

b. Excessive Sentences

The record does not reflect that defense counsel orally objected to the

sentences imposed upon Ford or filed a motion to reconsider sentences. Failure to

make or file a motion to reconsider sentence, or to state the specific grounds upon

which the motion is based, limits a defendant to a review of the sentence for

unconstitutional excessiveness only. La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(E); State v. Smith, 16-

406 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/30/17), 227 So.3d 337, 363, writs denied, 17-1643 (La.

9/14/18), 252 So.3d 481, and 17-1660 (La. 9/14/18), 252 So.3d 482. We note that

because Ford’s counsel did not object to the consecutive nature of Ford’s sentences

in the court below, Ford is not entitled to review of the consecutive nature of his

sentences in this appeal and is limited to a bare review of his sentences for

unconstitutional excessiveness. State v. McGee, 04-963 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/11/05),

894 So.2d 398, 412, writ denied, 05-593 (La. 5/20/05), 902 So.2d 1050.

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and

unusual punishment. Article I, § 20 of the Louisiana Constitution also prohibits

cruel and unusual punishment, but further explicitly prohibits excessive

punishment. A sentence is considered excessive, even when it is within the

applicable statutory range, “if it makes no measurable contribution to acceptable

goals of punishment and is nothing more than the purposeless imposition of pain

24-KA-197 34

and suffering and is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.” State v.

Dixon, 17-422 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/14/18), 241 So.3d 514, 523, writ denied, 18-542

(La. 2/11/19), 263 So.3d 415. In reviewing a sentence for excessiveness, the

appellate court must consider the punishment and the crime in light of the harm to

society and gauge whether the penalty is so disproportionate as to shock the court’s

sense of justice. State v. Shaw, 12-686 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/16/13), 108 So.3d 1189,

1195.

A trial judge is in the best position to consider the aggravating and

mitigating circumstances of a particular case, and therefore, is given broad

discretion when imposing a sentence. State v. Warmack, 07-311 (La. App. 5 Cir.

11/27/07), 973 So.2d 104, 109. The issue on appeal is whether the district court

abused its discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more

appropriate. State v. Dorsey, 07-67 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/29/07), 960 So.2d 1127,

1130. The review of sentences under La. Const. art. 1, § 20 does not provide an

appellate court with a vehicle for substituting its judgment for that of a trial judge

as to what punishment is most appropriate in a given case. State v. Williams, 07-

1111 (La. 12/7/07), 969 So.2d 1251, 1252 (per curiam).

The appellate court shall not set aside a sentence for excessiveness if the

record supports the sentence imposed. La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.4(D); State v. Pearson,

07-332 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/07), 975 So.2d 646, 656. In reviewing a district

court’s sentencing discretion, the reviewing court should consider the nature of the

crime, the nature and background of the offender, and the sentence imposed for

similar crimes by the same court and other courts. Id. at 656. However, there is no

requirement that specific matters be given any particular weight at sentencing.

State v. Tracy, 02-227 (La App. 5 Cir. 10/29/02), 831 So.2d 503, 516, writ denied,

02-2900 (La. 4/4/03), 840 So.2d 1213. Generally maximum sentences are reserved

for cases involving the most serious violations of the offense charged and the worst

24-KA-197 35

type of offender. State v. Melgar, 19-540 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/30/20), 296 So.3d

1107, 1115.

When determining the sentence to be imposed, a trial judge is not so limited

to considering only a defendant’s prior convictions, but may properly review all

prior criminal activity. State v. Arceneaux, 19-472 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/29/20), 290

So.3d 313, 316, writ denied, 20-324 (La. 5/14/20), 296 So.3d 608. The sentencing

court may rely on sources of information usually excluded from the courtroom at

the trial of guilt or innocence, e.g., hearsay and arrests, as well as conviction

records. Id. See also State v. Myles, 94-217 (La. 6/3/94), 638 So.2d 218, 219.

These matters may be considered even in the absence of proof the defendant

committed the other offense(s). Arceneaux, 290 So.3d at 316.

Here, the district court sentenced Ford to imprisonment at hard labor for

twenty years each on counts two and four (possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon), imprisonment at hard labor for forty years each on counts three and five

(obstruction of justice), and life imprisonment at hard labor each on counts six and

seven (second-degree murder). The district court ordered the sentences on counts

two, three, four, and five to run concurrently with each other. The district court

further ordered the sentence on count six to run consecutively to the sentences on

counts two, three, four, and five, and ordered the sentence on count seven to run

consecutively to the other sentences. The district court imposed the mandatory

sentences on counts six and seven and the maximum sentences for the remaining

counts.

Under the facts and circumstances presented by this case, we find that

maximum sentences were warranted. Ford has a criminal history, including

convictions of two counts of attempted second-degree murder on February 21,

1995; possession with the intent to distribute cocaine on February 20, 1997; and

theft of goods from Academy Sports. As to the nature of the offenses, Ford

24-KA-197 36

unlawfully possessed a firearm and used it to kill two people on two separate days

by shooting them in their heads. A third person was hit by a bullet during the first

shooting that could have killed him as well. Additionally, Ford left a loaded gun

unattended while fleeing from law enforcement, thus causing a risk of harm to

others, and he instilled fear in others who had knowledge of his crimes, two of

whom recanted their stories.

The JPSO believed that Ford killed Hensley because he witnessed the killing

of Hatten. Also, the victim impact statements established that Ford’s actions

caused great pain and suffering to the members of the victims’ families. Further,

the jailhouse calls reflect that Ford attempted to arrange for the killing of two

potential witnesses against him. At sentencing, Ford did not accept responsibility

for his crimes and indicated that he did not commit the murders despite the

overwhelming evidence against him, including multiple eyewitnesses and video

surveillance.

We find the record supports the sentences imposed.20 This assignment of

error is also without merit.

6. Violations of Constitutional Mandates of Rules 402 and 103 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence

In his final pro se assignment of error, Ford argues the State violated Federal

Rules of Evidence, Rule 103, which pertains to rulings on evidence, and Rule 104,

which pertains to the general admissibility of relevant evidence. He contends that

as investigators of a homicide, the detectives had a mandatory duty to thoroughly

20
See State v. Sly, 23-60 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/2/23), 376 So.3d 1047, 1092, writ denied, 23-1588 (La.
4/23/24), 383 So.3d 608 (“We conclude that Sly’s mandatory sentence at hard labor for second degree
murder is not unconstitutionally excessive.”); State v. Caffrey, 08-717 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/12/09), 15 So.3d
198, writ denied, 09-1305 (La. 2/5/10), 27 So.3d 297 (maximum sentence for a violation of La. R.S.
14:95.1, when the defendant had one prior drug conviction and possessed a loaded firearm at the time of
his arrest under circumstances where his actions presented a danger to the public was upheld); and State v.
Royal, 03-439 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/30/03), 857 So.2d 1167, 1175, writ denied, 03-3172 (La. 3/19/04), 869
So.2d 849 (maximum forty-year sentence for an obstruction of justice conviction was upheld, pointing
out that the defendant disposed of a weapon that was used in a murder and that he was convicted of that
murder).

24-KA-197 37

investigate relevant evidence of his alibi. He further contends that the admission

into evidence of the detective’s speculation of his whereabouts was irrelevant and

prejudiced his defense. Ford asserts that had detectives checked the place where

he told them he was, the cameras in the parking lot and hallways would have

proven that he was not at the crime scenes at the time the crimes were committed

and did not lie about his whereabouts as the detectives insinuated in their reports.

He also asserts that the detectives failed to investigate a Crimestoppers tip that

someone else was responsible for the crime.

In response, the State contends that, because the record does not reflect any

motions or objections in relation to the alleged errors as required by La. C.Cr.P.

art. 841, Ford’s arguments should be deemed waived. Further, the State contends

that the record does not indicate that Ford filed a written notice of alibi pursuant to

La. C.Cr.P. art. 727. The State also argues that even if Ford’s arguments are

considered, he is not entitled to relief on appeal. The State avers that Ford was

permitted to present evidence related to his purported alibi and the Crimestoppers

tip at trial, and that he had the opportunity to explore any alleged deficiencies in

the police investigation in regard to those matters. Lastly, the State contends the

jury heard this evidence and had the opportunity to consider the adequacy of the

police investigation.

First, the Federal Rules of Evidence are inapplicable to Ford’s state trial.

Second, the record shows that Ford failed to lodge a contemporaneous on the

grounds of relevancy, and therefore, his argument as to that issue is waived

pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 841. Third, as the State notes, Ford did not file a

written notice of alibi as required by La. C.Cr.P. art. 727.

Nonetheless, we find that Ford had the opportunity to present evidence at

trial regarding his alibi and the Crimestopper’s tip and that he was allowed to

cross-examine witnesses regarding any alleged deficiencies in the police

24-KA-197 38

investigation regarding those matters. The record reflects that the jury was

presented with Ford’s recorded statement wherein he discussed his whereabouts at

the time of the first shooting. The jury was also presented with Detective

Buttone’s testimony regarding the investigation of the Crimestopper’s tip. As

such, we find the jury was in a position to consider the adequacy and manner of the

investigation for purposes of weighing the evidence at issue. For these reasons, we

find this assignment of error is without merit.

ERRORS PATENT REVIEW

The record was reviewed for errors patent according to 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). Our review reveals the following errors patent, only one of

which requires correction.

Post-Conviction Relief Advisal

The transcript reflects that the trial judge incorrectly advised Ford of the

provisions of La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. The trial judge stated that “no application for

post-conviction relief including application should seek an out-of-time appeal shall

be considered if it is a little more than two years after the judgment of conviction

and sentence has become final.” The sentencing minute entry reflects that the trial

judge advised defendant that he had “two (2) years after judgement of conviction

and sentence has become final to seek post-conviction relief.” The transcript

prevails where there is an inconsistency between the minute entry and the

transcript. See State v. Lynch, 441 So.2d 732, 734 (La. 1983).

La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 provides that a defendant shall have two years after the

judgment of conviction and sentence has become final to seek post-conviction

relief. 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

24-KA-197 39

of its opinion. See State v. Becnel, 18-549 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/6/19), 265 So.3d

1017, 1022. Accordingly, by way of this opinion, Ford is hereby advised that no

application for post-conviction relief, including an application which seeks an out-

of-time appeal, shall be considered if 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. See State v. Barnett, 18-254 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/3/19), 267

So.3d 209, 235.

Mandatory Fine

The trial judge failed to impose the mandatory fines on counts two and four

(possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1) of

“not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars.”

Although this Court has the authority to correct an illegal sentence at any time

pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 882, the authority to correct an illegally lenient

sentence is permissive rather than mandatory. This Court has previously exercised

its discretion to decline to correct an illegally lenient sentence in the case of an

indigent defendant. See State v. Fisher, 19-488 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/24/20), 299

So.3d 1238, 1249. Here, Ford is represented by the Louisiana Appellate Project,

which represents indigent defendants in non-capital felony cases. Therefore, due

to Ford’s indigent status, we decline to remand this matter for imposition of the

mandatory fines as to counts two and four. See State v. Manuel, 20-172 (La. App.

5 Cir. 6/2/21), 325 So.3d 513, 570-71, writ denied, 21-926 (La. 10/12/21), 325

So.3d 1071.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Ford’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED

24-KA-197 40

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL 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
FEBRUARY 26, 2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-KA-197
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE JUNE B. DARENSBURG (DISTRICT JUDGE)
ANDREA F. LONG (APPELLEE) THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE) PRENTICE L. WHITE (APPELLANT)

MAILED
ALONZO W. FORD #337463 (APPELLANT) HONORABLE PAUL D. CONNICK, JR.
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY (APPELLEE)
ANGOLA, LA 70712 DISTRICT ATTORNEY
KRISTEN LANDRIEU (APPELLEE)
LEO M. AARON (APPELLEE)
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
200 DERBIGNY STREET
GRETNA, LA 70053