State of Louisiana Versus Joshua L Martin AKA "Joshua Dennis" AKA "Ruga"

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-KA-233

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

JOSHUA L MARTIN AKA "JOSHUA DENNIS" COURT OF APPEAL
AKA "RUGA"
STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 22-2977, DIVISION "N"
HONORABLE STEPHEN D. ENRIGHT, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

February 26, 2025

MARC E. JOHNSON
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson,
Stephen J. Windhorst, and Scott U. Schlegel

AFFIRMED
MEJ
SJW
SUS

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Thomas J. Butler
Monique D. Nolan
Eric Cusimano
Piper Scotton

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
JOSHUA L MARTIN
Mary Constance Hanes

JOHNSON, J.

Defendant, Joshua L. Martin, aka “Joshua Dennis”, aka “Ruga”, seeks

review of his December 2023 convictions of armed robbery and possession of a

firearm by a felon. For the following reasons, we affirm Defendant’s convictions

and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The following facts were adduced through testimony and exhibits at trial on

December 4, and 5, 2023.

On April 24, 2022, former Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (“JPSO”)

Deputy Justin D’herete responded to a carjacking signal at 6220 Riverside Drive in

Metairie. The 9-1-1 call reporting a carjacking at the Riverside Court

Condominiums went out at 10:08 p.m. The deputy arrived at the scene shortly

thereafter. He questioned the victim, Ms. Evelyn Simonett, while equipped with a

bodycam; he identified the victim and a bystander on the bodycam footage played

for the jury. Ms. Simonett had walked around the condominiums for approximately

ten to twenty minutes to find someone to help her call 9-1-1. Deputy D’herete

explained that the shirt that she was wearing was torn and had blood on it. He also

testified that there were visible contusions on her face and that it was bloody and

swollen. He also stated that her hands were bloody. He testified that Ms. Simonett

relayed that the perpetrator’s name was “Ruga1.”

Ms. Simonett explained to Deputy D’herete that she met the perpetrator at

the “detail shop,” a place she used to work, two days before. They spoke for about

30 - 45 minutes while he detailed her car, a black 2018 Chevrolet Sonic. On April

24th, the perpetrator texted her “around nine[p.m.]” and asked for a ride. She

picked him up at the detail shop and they drove less than 10 minutes to an

apartment complex. When she stopped the car in the parking lot of the Riverside

1
Deputy D’herete explained that he mistakenly spelled the nickname as “Juga” in his report.

24-KA-233 1

Court Condominiums, he pulled a gun out of a backpack and told her to get out of

the car. She told him that he would have to kill her, and he hit her on the head with

his handgun five or six times. Then, he pulled her out of the car and sped off. Ms.

Simonette also told Deputy D’herete that the perpetrator told her that he was going

to kill her when he put the gun to her head. At the end of the bodycam footage,

EMS was seen attending to Ms. Simonett.

Deputy D’herete stayed on the scene to look around but could not locate

where the incident occurred in the parking lot. Later, he met Ms. Simonett at

Ochsner Hospital in Kenner to continue to interview her, but she did not remember

anything else. Deputy D’herete determined that the Klean King2 car wash on

Veterans Memorial Boulevard was the car wash Ms. Simonett referred to in her

statement. He went to the car wash to see if there were video cameras that could

provide evidence. JPSO Robbery Division then took over the investigation.

Ms. Simonett testified at trial that she was sixty-four years old and on

disability. She lived with and cared for her mother and her autistic nephew. She

gave “the gentleman” a ride that night because she would want someone to do the

same for her. She stated that she met him the day before3 the incident occurred at

the Klean King car wash, while her car was being detailed. She exchanged phone

numbers with the perpetrator because he was interesting to talk to. She testified

that they just talked about life in general and spoke for less than an hour.

On the night of the incident, she picked the perpetrator up at Klean King.

Ms. Simonett noticed he had his cell phone underneath his right leg and thought it

was suspicious. She pulled into the “driveway” of the apartments, and he would

not get out of the passenger seat of the car. She stated that there was a Caucasian

man across the street from where they parked, and the perpetrator kept staring at

2
The car wash is referred to as “King Klean” and “Klean King” car wash throughout the trial. The record
reflects, however, that the actual name of the car wash is “Klean King.”
3
She explained on the stand that she meant the day before when she said “two days ago”.

24-KA-233 2

him. Ms. Simonett testified that the perpetrator held the gun to her and said, “Give

me your car.” She told him, “You can kill me, but you’re not getting my car.” Ms.

Simonett stated that the man started to hit her with his gun in her face and on her

head. He then opened the passenger door and pulled her out through the passenger

side of the car onto the ground. He closed the door and ran quickly to the driver’s

side and drove away. Ms. Simonett testified that her cell phone was in the door of

the car, and her wallet was under her seat.

After the incident happened, it took her approximately ten minutes to find

someone to help her. Ms. Simonett had never been to that part of town before. She

tried to flag down cars after the incident but was unable to receive assistance from

anyone. The only person who stopped for her was a “Good Samaritan who stopped

with a bat in his hands.” She testified that he “took her in from there” and called 9-

1-1.

Ms. Simonett recalled going to the hospital that night, but she could not

remember how long she stayed. The next day her mother called the paramedics and

told them Ms. Simonett was incoherent so Ms. Simonett went to the hospital again.

She was shown a photo lineup after the incident, but she could not identify anyone

in the photographs as the perpetrator.

At trial, Ms. Simonett did not recognize anyone in court as the man who

committed the robbery. She testified that the perpetrator was a black male who was

approximately 5’4” or 5’5”. His nickname was Ruga. He wore a dark short-

sleeved shirt, dark pants, and had a “do-rag” on his head. She explained that the

day before, when she met him, she noticed that he had dreadlocks. On the night of

the incident, she could see the dreadlocks from underneath the do-rag. Ms.

Simonett testified that she saw the perpetrator again at Star gas station, but he did

not recognize her. She testified that she called Detective Eric Hymel to report the

24-KA-233 3

sighting. Approximately one week later, she was called to “identify some photos,”

but she did not see the perpetrator in the lineup.

On cross-examination, Ms. Simonett testified that she noticed the

perpetrator’s brown eyes, and did not notice whether he had any tattoos on his

face. During redirect, Ms. Simonett testified that she was only confused about the

perpetrator’s height. She thought he was 5’11”, but she is 5’7” and the perpetrator

was shorter than her. She estimated his actual height was 5’4”.

JPSO patrol officer Ellied Riley received a “camera hit” notification for a

stolen vehicle from the Automated License Plate Recognition System (ALPR). On

April 29, 2022, around midnight, he recognized the vehicle from the camera hit at

a RaceTrac gas station in Gretna. Officer Riley observed a white female in the

driver’s seat and a black male in the passenger’s seat. He confirmed the license

plate number with headquarters, and while he waited for other officers to arrive,

the car sped off. Officer Riley pursued the vehicle northbound on Lapalco

Boulevard and then southbound on Wall Boulevard. When the vehicle was located,

it had crashed into a house and was totaled. Officer Riley did not observe the

vehicle crash, or the driver and passenger exit the vehicle. Officer Riley did not

search the vehicle.

Detective Dustin Ducote worked in JPSO’s digital forensics unit and was

accepted by the court as an expert in mobile device forensics. The unit received

three iPhones in connection with the instant matter. An extraction was performed

on each of them, which revealed identifying information.

Detective Ducote identified a black iPhone 13 mini in a clear case

(“Defendant’s Phone”). He testified that the extraction reflected that the Apple ID

associated with the phone was “joshuadennis463@gmail.com.” The device name

24-KA-233 4

was “Joshua’s iPhone.” The Snapchat name associated with the phone was

“rugaxsavage.” The phone number associated with the phone was 504-***-5991.4,5

Detective Ducote also identified an iPhone XR (iPhone 10) (“Kayla’s

Phone”), and the Apple ID associated with the phone was

“kkleblanc2817@gmail.com,” and the device name was “Kayla’s iPhone.” He

testified that on Kayla’s iPhone, the contact name associated with Joshua Dennis’

number was “my favorite a**hole.”

He identified text messages between Kayla’s iPhone and Defendant’s

iPhone. The text messages, sent on April 24, 2022, beginning at 9:40 p.m. read:

“She got one wit a tracker” (from Defendant’s iPhone)

“Wat yu wan me do?” (from Defendant’s iPhone)

“How Yk6” (from Kayla’s iPhone)

“It’s a computer dash” (from Defendant’s iPhone)

“[emoji reply]” (from Kayla’s iPhone)

“wat yu think” (from Defendant’s iPhone)

“Hurry up” (from Defendant’s iPhone)

“Get it” (from Kayla’s iPhone)

“It can’t be activated right away” (from Kayla’s iPhone)

(Footnote added).

Detective Ducote testified that the text messages between the two included

texts sent from April 22 to April 26, 2022. He also was able to access a video from

Kayla’s phone that showed a black Chevrolet Sonic, Ms. Simonett’s vehicle. The

video was dated April 25, 2022, and it was taken at 3:18 p.m. A still shot of the

video was entered into evidence.

4
Out of an abundance of caution, the phone numbers are redacted. See State v. Murray, 17-534 (La. App.
5 Cir. 3/14/18) 242 So.3d 821, 825 n.3.
5
A screenshot of the identifying information of the iPhone was admitted.
6
Detective Ducote testified that “YK” was slang for “you know.”

24-KA-233 5

Detective Ducote identified a third iPhone (“Kayla iPhone #2”). The Apple

ID on the phone was Kayla LeBlanc or “kkleblanc2817@gmail.com.” He stated

that, in Kayla’s second phone, the contact name for the same telephone number

associated with Defendant was “Bam “Broski”7.” Detective Ducote identified a

photograph of Defendant that was found on Kayla’s “first phone” [Kayla’s iPhone]

He testified that the photo was dated April 24, 2022, at 1:04 p.m. He also found a

photo of Defendant and Kayla together on the same phone. The photo was dated

April 22, 2022, and was taken at 8:07 p.m.

Detective Eric Hymel of JPSO’s Robbery Division was assigned to the

armed robbery that occurred in the instant matter on April 24, 2022, at the

Riverside Court Condominiums in Metairie. Detective Hymel initially made

contact with Ms. Simonett by phone because she was still receiving treatment for

her injuries. He learned from Ms. Simonett that she met with the perpetrator the

day prior to the robbery while she was getting her vehicle detailed. She told him

that the individual called her the night of April 24th between approximately 9:00

and 9:30 p.m. and asked for a ride. Once they arrived at the apartments, the

perpetrator told her to get out of the car and then struck her multiple times with a

firearm, causing severe injuries to her face. She was then removed from the

vehicle, and the perpetrator drove away in the vehicle. Ms. Simonett described the

perpetrator as a twenty to thirty-year-old Black male, thinly built, whose nickname

was “Ruga.”8 She recalled that he was wearing a do-rag, all black clothing, and had

tattoos on his arms. Detective Hymel testified that Ms. Simonett never reported to

him that the perpetrator had dreadlocks.

7
Review of the exhibit in question reveals the contact is listed as “Bam “Broski,”” which appears in the
transcripts as “Van Broskey” and “Bam Broskey” along with the notation “(spelled phonetically)”.
8
Detective Hymel testified that initially, Ms. Simonett reported that the perpetrator’s nickname was
“Juga.” He stated that she later corrected it and stated it was “Ruga.” Detective Hymel explained that he
credited the mistake to her injuries because she required stitches to her mouth which caused speech
impediments.

24-KA-233 6

Detective Hymel testified that some of Ms. Simonett’s belongings were still

inside of her vehicle when it was taken, including her purse and cell phone. The

detective obtained a search warrant for Ms. Simonett’s phone records to see what

numbers contacted her during the time frame of the robbery. The 9-1-1 call came

in for this incident at 10:08 p.m. He identified the number that called Ms. Simonett

during the relevant time frame and conducted a search of the phone number.

Detective Hymel obtained surveillance video from Riverside Court

Condominiums and Victorian Condominiums, which was on the other side of the

street; he did not obtain anything of evidentiary value from these videos. He also

obtained surveillance from Klean King car wash. He identified Ms. Simonett

arriving in her black vehicle based on the time frame she gave him during her

statement. A subject was observed walking to the car, which was parked along

Veterans Boulevard. He explained that the video had a ten-minute time

discrepancy. The surveillance video was played in court, and Detective Hymel

testified that at the 9:47:40 timestamp (actually 9:37 p.m.) a black sedan arrived at

Klean King car wash and parked along Veterans Memorial Boulevard. A subject in

dark clothing was seen walking towards the vehicle, which was identified as Ms.

Simonett’s vehicle. The video then showed the vehicle traveling westbound on

Veterans Memorial Boulevard. He testified that the video corroborated Ms.

Simonett’s statements and the timeline of events.

Detective Hymel learned that on April 29, 2022, the Second District Patrol

Division received an alert from the license plate recognition system regarding Ms.

Simonett’s vehicle at a RaceTrac gas station on the corner of Wall and Lapalco

Boulevard. The vehicle fled, and the deputy gave pursuit. The vehicle crashed into

a private residence. The two occupants, a white female driver and a black male

passenger, fled and were not apprehended. The vehicle was taken into JPSO

custody and photographed. The photographs included a photo of the license plate

24-KA-233 7

of Ms. Simonett’s black Chevrolet Sonic. Also included in the photographs was a

photo of what Detective Hymel identified as a black Steve Madden bag located by

the brake pedal. He found a driver’s license issued to Kayla Tyler LeBlanc and Ms.

Simonett’s debit card inside the bag. A red Apple iPhone with a clear Guess case

was found on the driver-side floorboard, and a black Apple iPhone with a clear

case was found on the front passenger floorboard.

Detective Hymel inspected the black iPhone and discovered that the home

screen had a photograph of a black male with a short beard, who was wearing a

“do-rag,” and kissing a white female. The red iPhone had notifications on the lock

screen that included an Instagram notification from “rugaxsavage9.”

Detective Hymel received the extraction information from the iPhones

collected from Ms. Simonett’s car from the digital forensics unit. He searched for

the Instagram name “rugaxsavage9” and obtained a search warrant for the account.

He testified that the name “Ruga” immediately stuck out to him. The account was

not private, and he discovered numerous photographs of who he identified as

Joshua Dennis based on prior law enforcement database searches. He discovered

that “Joshua Dennis” and “Joshua Martin” were the same person through a search

of the JPSO “ARMS system,” and the names were linked through a unique number

given to arrestees. “Joshua Martin” was also the alias used on a previous arrest for

Joshua Dennis.

Defendant’s Instagram account records included a photograph posted to

Instagram of a black male wearing a black “do-rag” with tattoos on his face, neck,

and arms. The male was standing in front of a yellow brick wall and had a firearm

in his pocket. Detective Hymel recognized the building was the Klean King car

wash and identified Defendant as the individual in the photo. He said that

Defendant had a “very specific tattoo” on his right hand of the letter “B.” The

records indicated that the photograph was taken on April 27, 2022, at 2:00 p.m.

24-KA-233 8

Detective Hymel also found a direct message between rugaxsavage9 and another

Instagram user with a photo for a cash app profile, with the name “Joshua Dennis”,

and the username “$rugaxsavage900.”

Klean King car wash personnel advised Detective Hymel that Ruga/Joshua

was in a relationship with a white female. The photo on the home screen of the

black iPhone 15 found in the car was identical to a photo from rugaxsavage9’s

Instagram. The woman in the photo was confirmed to be Kayla LeBlanc.

Detective Hymel testified that he received T-Mobile phone records from Ms.

Simonett’s phone number. In examining the records, he found corresponding

phone calls from Defendant’s phone number while she was traveling to Klean

King’s car wash, prior to the crime being reported.

According to the reports, Detective Hymel testified that two phone calls

were made from 504-***-5991 on April 24, 2022, at 9:13 p.m. and 9:32 p.m. He

stated that he looked up the phone number in the JPSO ARMS database and

discovered that there was a call for service to JPSO’s 9-1-1- system placed by 504-

***-5991 on April 11, 2022. Records provided that the call was reported from

6525 Veterans Memorial Boulevard, the address of Klean King’s car wash. The 9-

1-1 caller stated his phone number and his name, Joshua. The caller stated that his

girlfriend, Kayla, was sick. Detective Hymel testified that the phone number that

made the 9-1-1 call on April 11th matched the phone number of the incoming calls

to Ms. Simonett’s phone on April 24th at 9:13 p.m. and 9:32 p.m.

Detective Hymel reiterated that the 9-1-1 call for the armed robbery went

out at 10:08 p.m., and the location of Ms. Simonett’s phone (provided by the phone

records’ coordinates) indicated that at 10:02 p.m., she was located in the area of

Riverside Drive. That fact corroborated what he learned from Ms. Simonett.

JPSO issued arrest warrants for Defendant and Kayla Leblanc. Detective

Hymel testified that after the suspects were arrested and interviewed, he contacted

24-KA-233 9

Ms. Simonett. She told him that she had seen the perpetrator at a gas station and

the man who she believed committed the armed robbery had dreadlocks. Detective

Hymel testified that at that point in the investigation, after his extensive research,

there had been no mention of dreadlocks. He stated that this was a

“misremembrance” on Ms. Simonett’s part, due to the long period of time that had

elapsed since the incident and the trauma she had suffered. A photographic lineup

procedure was conducted but Ms. Simonett was unable to identify the perpetrator

from the lineup. Defendant was “number 3” in the lineup shown to Ms. Simonett.

The lineup procedure was conducted approximately three months after the armed

robbery occurred.

Detective Hymel testified that when Kayla was arrested, she filled out a

Miranda9 rights form and elected to make a statement to him. The date of birth she

provided on the form, August 14, 2000, matched the date of birth on the license

found in Ms. Simonett’s car. He testified that in her statement, Kayla indicated that

she knew the Defendant as “Ruga.” She was arrested with a purple phone, and she

identified it as her own. Kayla gave Detective Hymel consent to search her phone

and gave him the passcode. In the phone, Detective Hymel located and

photographed an Instagram conversation in which Kayla alluded to an incident that

occurred in which she was injured in “a real bad wreck.” The message was dated

April 30th at 2:03 p.m.

Detective Hymel then showed photographs to Kayla. She identified the red

iPhone as her own. Detective Hymel also showed her the photograph of the

Instagram messages of the home screen of her iPhone. Kayla stated that the

username “5040.kay10” was her Instagram username. She identified herself and a

male in her picture as Ruga. She also identified the photograph of her ID and her

9
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
10
The Instagram user name is spelled as it appears on the picture of the notifications on her phone’s home
screen: an exhibit admitted into evidence. The username is spelled differently in the transcript.

24-KA-233 10

Steve Madden bag. She offered to give the detective information regarding a theft

that occurred as an explanation of how those things were found in the vehicle.

Defendant was arrested and read his Miranda rights. Defendant signed the

form and agreed to waive his rights. The audiovisual recording of Defendant’s

statement was played for the jury. On the video, Defendant explained that he

worked at Klean King and that his co-workers called him Joshua. He initially

denied having the nickname “Ruga” and stated that there was another guy at Klean

King with that name, who was much thinner than him and who also had tattoos. He

denied any involvement in taking someone’s car or an armed robbery. He stated

that someone stole all of his things from Klean King, which included his bag, his

phone, and his girlfriend’s phone. When asked why Kayla would call him Ruga, he

stated that she did not call him that. He stated that he and Kayla had been together

for a few months. When asked why Kayla would give Detective Hymel his name,

Defendant replied that she was probably scared. Defendant eventually admitted

that he lied to Detective Hymel about his nickname because of his involvement

with drugs. When shown photographs of items found in Ms. Simonett’s vehicle,

Defendant identified Kayla’s phone. He stated that her phone was stolen on April

Fool’s Day. When Detective Hymel showed him a picture of the black iPhone, he

stated that it was his phone. When shown his photograph with Kayla on the home

screen, Defendant stated that it was not him in the picture and that he had tattoos

on his face. He stated he did not know who the girl was. He reiterated that his

phone was stolen. Detective Hymel asked if someone was using his social media

accounts to communicate with people at that time. Defendant replied affirmatively

and said that he no longer had those accounts.

During the recorded statement, Defendant identified photographs shown to

him of Kayla’s phone and ID and stated that someone stole those items along with

her purse. When shown the photo of Ms. Simonett’s crashed vehicle, he exclaimed

24-KA-233 11

that he was not injured and expressed shock over the state of the front of the car.

Detective Hymel asked Defendant if someone impersonated him for a whole

month. Defendant repeated that he had a new phone and that his and Kayla’s

phones were stolen. Defendant began cursing and denied any involvement in the

armed robbery. Defendant also denied ever having a gun. When asked how he

could explain texts between him and his family and photos taken on his phone after

it was apparently stolen, Defendant stated it could have been done by other people.

With Defendant’s permission, Detective Hymel took a DNA swab from him.11

Detective Hymel issued a subpoena for 504-***-5991 (Defendant’s phone

number) to obtain phone records from AT&T. Detective Hymel testified that the

records corroborated information from the T-Mobile records collected for Ms.

Simonett’s phone -- Defendant’s phone records provided that on April 24, 2022, at

9:14 p.m. and at 9:32 p.m., he called Ms. Simonett’s phone number (504-***-

6012). Detective Hymel examined the extractions of the phone that were

conducted by JPSO’s digital forensics unit and confirmed that the phone number of

the black iPhone found in Ms. Simonett’s vehicle matched the number that called

Ms. Simonett. Defendant’s phone records also provided location data showing his

location at approximately 9:13 p.m. and 9:32 p.m. were close to Klean King and

“hit” off a tower nearby.

Detective Hymel reviewed extractions of Kayla’s cell phones and located a

video of a male subject who used the phone to record video of what he realized

was Ms. Simonett’s black Chevrolet Sonic. He was able to identify Ms. Simonett’s

vehicle because the video panned from numerous sides of the vehicle. The

detective recognized the white female driver in the video as Kayla. The video also

showed the “B” tattoo on Defendant’s hand.

11
On cross-examination, Detective Hymel confirmed that he did not perform a DNA search of Ms.
Simonett’s vehicle.

24-KA-233 12

Detective Hymel viewed text messages from Defendant’s phone number to

Kayla. He stated that he interpreted “she got one with a tracker” to mean the

vehicle had the ability to be tracked. He testified that what also stuck out to him

was the date and time of the text messages, April 24, 2022, at 9:40 p.m. According

to the timeline, the messages were sent after Ms. Simonett picked Defendant up

and before 9-1-1 was called. He confirmed there was communication between

Defendant’s phone number and Kayla’s phone number after the robbery took

place.

Detective Hymel testified that Google searches for information on vehicle

tracking and tracking features from Kayla’s phone were performed during the time

frame when Defendant sent her a text asking what she wanted him to do.

Kayla LeBlanc testified that, in the instant matter, she pled guilty and was

convicted of armed robbery, and was presently serving her sentence. She stated

that she did not know a “Ruga.” Kayla refused to answer questions by the State or

confirm any of the assertions the State alleged she made in her statement. The State

asked the court to designate Kayla as a hostile witness. Kayla confirmed that

Detective Hymel asked her what color her iPhone was, and she answered that it

was red. She testified that she was “loaded” and on drugs during her statement. On

cross-examination, she denied any involvement in the armed robbery with

Defendant.

On July 25, 2022, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of

information charging Defendant, Joshua L. Martin, with armed robbery with a

firearm in violation of La. R.S. 14:64 (count one) and possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (count two). Both counts were

alleged to have occurred on or about April 24, 2022.

Defendant was arraigned on July 25, 2022, and pled not guilty. Later, the

State filed a superseding bill of information that added Kayla LeBlanc as a

24-KA-233 13

defendant charged in count one of the bill (armed robbery)12. On February 10,

2023, the State added Defendant’s aliases to the bill of information. The aliases

were listed as “Joshua Dennis” and “Ruga.” On May 8, 2023, the State amended

the previous conviction listed in the bill of information for count two from “armed

robbery” to “first degree robbery in violation of 14:64.1.”

On December 5, 2023, the jury found Defendant guilty as charged on both

counts. On January 11, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for new trial and motion for

post-verdict judgment of acquittal. After a hearing the same day, the trial court

denied both motions. Defendant waived sentencing delays, and the trial court

sentenced Defendant to twenty years imprisonment at hard labor to be served

without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence on count one.

As to count two, the trial court sentenced Defendant to fifteen years imprisonment

at hard labor to be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of

sentence. Both counts were ordered to run concurrently with one another.

On the same date, the State filed a multiple offender bill of information on

count one (armed robbery), alleging that Defendant was a second-felony offender,

having previously pled guilty on January 7, 2014, to a violation of La. R.S.

14:64.1, first degree robbery in Case No. 13-4781 of the 24th Judicial District

Court in Jefferson Parish. A multiple bill hearing was held on February 8, 2024.

After the hearing, the trial court adjudicated Defendant as a “double felony

offender.” Defense counsel objected to the court’s finding. The trial court vacated

the previous sentence as to count one and sentenced Defendant as a “double felony

offender” to sixty years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of

probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The trial court ordered the sentence to

12
The amended bill of information indicates that there was an amendment to count one on March 3, 2023,
“as to Kayla LeBlanc only.” The amendment strikes “to wit a firearm” from count one. The record
reflects that Ms. LeBlanc pled guilty to La. R.S. 14:64, armed robbery, on March 3, 2023.

24-KA-233 14

run concurrently with the sentence it issued earlier on count two and with any other

sentences Defendant was currently serving.

On March 6, 2024, defense counsel filed a motion for appeal, which was

granted on March 8, 2024.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Defendant argues that the evidence to support his convictions was

insufficient and that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was

the man who committed armed robbery of the victim’s vehicle. Defendant points to

the fact that no witness, including his co-defendant Kayla LeBlanc, who pled

guilty, identified him as the perpetrator. Further, Ms. Simonett, the victim, did not

identify him in a photographic lineup, or in court, and he does not match the

physical description she gave to the police of her attacker.

The State counters that, although the victim was unable to make a positive

identification, it set forth sufficient evidence to prove Defendant’s identity beyond

a reasonable doubt. The State urges it proved Defendant’s identity as the

perpetrator of the crimes through testimony and evidence linking Defendant to the

armed robbery and that there is no merit to Defendant’s assignment of error. The

State argues that Ms. Simonett attempted to identify him out of a lineup several

months after the violent armed robbery, and the trial took place more than a year

and a half after the crime occurred.

Furthermore, the victim was able to provide some identifying information

that pointed to Defendant’s identity as the perpetrator, including his nickname,

“Ruga,” details about cell phone calls between them, his presence at Klean King,

and his physical description. The State avers that, even assuming that the

discrepancies were not explained, the discrepancies go to the credibility of the

witness. Defense counsel cross-examined Ms. Simonett about any discrepancies in

identifying Defendant, and the jury found her credible. The State cites to State v.

24-KA-233 15

Preston, 15-306 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/28/15), 178 So.3d 207, 211, writ denied, 15-

2169 (La. 11/18/16), 210 So.3d 283, and argues that Ms. Simonett was able to

provide ample testimony in conjunction with the State’s evidence that negated any

probability of misidentification.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

First, in this case, Defendant did not file a motion to reconsider sentence. He

was convicted on December 5, 2023 and originally sentenced on January 11, 2024.

The motion for appeal was filed on March 6, 2024, more than thirty days after the

original sentencing. As such, the filing of the motion for appeal was untimely in

part; the motion for appeal is timely with regards to the multiple bill proceedings.

However, the motion for appeal as to Defendant’s original proceedings is untimely.

Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy and the avoidance of useless

delay, we will consider Defendant’s appeal. See State v. Raines, 24-177 (La. App.

5 Cir. 12/18/24), -- So.3d --, 2024 WL 5153198 at *4.

The question of sufficiency of the evidence is properly raised in the trial

court by a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art.

821. State v. Williams, 20-46 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/30/20), 308 So.3d 791, 816, writ

denied, 21-316 (La. 5/25/21), 316 So.3d 2. Defendant filed a post-verdict judgment

of acquittal and a motion for new trial in January 2024. Both motions were denied

on the same date.

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. Lane, 20-181 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/27/21), 310 So.3d 794, 804.

Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances

24-KA-233 16

from which the existence of the main fact can be inferred according to reason and

common experience. State v. Gatson, 21-156 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/29/21), 334 So.3d

1021, 1034. When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the

offense, La. R.S. 15:438 provides, “[A]ssuming every fact to be proved that the

evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable

hypothesis of innocence.” State v. Woods, 23-41 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/15/23), 376

So.3d 1144, 1155, writ denied, 23-1615 (La. 5/29/04), 385 So.3d 700. This is not a

separate test from the Jackson standard but rather provides a helpful basis for

determining the existence of reasonable doubt. Id. The reviewing court is not

required to determine whether another possible hypothesis of innocence suggested

by the defendant offers an exculpatory explanation of events. Rather, the reviewing

court must determine whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently

reasonable that a rational trier of fact could not have found proof of guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt. State v. King, 22-371 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/24/23), 365 So.3d 897,

907, writ denied, 23-790 (La. 1/17/24), 377 So.3d 242, cert. denied, 23-7253 --

U.S.--, 144 S.Ct. 2694, 219 L.Ed.2d 1305 (2024).

The directive that the evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to the

prosecution requires the reviewing court to defer to the actual trier of fact’s rational

credibility calls, evidence weighing, and inference drawing. State v. Clifton, 17-

538 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/23/18), 248 So.3d 691, 702. This deference to the fact-

finder does not permit a reviewing court to decide whether it believes a witness or

whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence. State v.

McKinney, 20-19 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/4/20), 304 So.3d 1097, 1102. As a result,

under the Jackson standard, a review of the record for sufficiency of the evidence

does not require the reviewing court to determine whether the evidence at the trial

established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but whether, upon review of the whole

24-KA-233 17

record, any rational trier of fact would have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Id. at 1103.

In making this determination, a reviewing court will not re-evaluate the

credibility of witnesses or re-weigh the evidence. Lane, supra. Thus, in the absence

of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflicts with physical evidence, the

testimony of one witness, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient to support a

conviction. McKinney, supra.

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

proving the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator. Where the key issue is the

identification, the State is required to negate any reasonable probability of

misidentification to carry its burden of proof. State v. Smith, 20-177 (La. App. 5

Cir. 4/28/21), 325 So.3d 482, 488, writ denied, 21-975 (La. 11/17/21), 327 So.3d

992; State v. Davis, 18-485 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/10/19), 269 So.3d 1123, 1131, writ

denied, 19-716 (La. 11/12/19), 282 So.3d 229.

Defendant was convicted of armed robbery. Armed robbery is the taking of

anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the

immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, while armed with a

dangerous weapon. La. R.S. 14:64. To support a conviction for armed robbery, the

State must prove that there was (1) a taking, (2) of anything of value, (3) from the

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

intimidation, (5) while armed with a dangerous weapon. State v. Collins, 04-1443

(La. App. 5 Cir. 7/26/05), 910 So.2d 454, 457-58. A gun used in connection with a

robbery is, as a matter of law, a dangerous weapon. State v. Williams, 12-687 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 119 So.3d 228, 233, writ denied, 13-1335 (La. 12/2/13), 126

So.3d 500. The act of pointing a gun at a victim is sufficient to prove the required

element of force or intimidation for purposes of armed robbery. Id.

24-KA-233 18

Defendant was also convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon. To support a conviction for 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. Woods, 376 So.3d at

1156.

Defendant does not contest on appeal that the State failed to prove any

specified essential statutory element of La. R.S. 14:64 or La. R.S. 14:95.1. Rather,

Defendant argues that the State failed to negate any reasonable probability of

misidentification of the perpetrator of the crimes of armed robbery and felon in

possession of a firearm because Ms. Simonett did not positively identify him in a

photographic lineup, or in court at trial.

Both the State and Defendant cite to Preston, supra. In Preston, the

defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a jury’s finding that

he was the person who committed the armed robbery. Preston, 178 So.3d at 213.

The defendant’s argument was based on the absence of any witness capable of

identifying him as the perpetrator of the armed robbery against the victim. Id. The

victim could not provide a clear description of the face of the man who stole her

purse at gunpoint one night when she was on her way to church or identify the

perpetrator out of a lineup. Defendant also argued that another witness’ (his

girlfriend’s mother) testimony cast doubt on his identity as the perpetrator. That

witness testified that another individual confessed to her that he robbed an “old

lady” at gunpoint in front of a church. She testified that the individual told her that

he had fled a residence at 728 Filmore Street and was present in the house when

the defendant was arrested. On cross-examination, the witness admitted she did not

have personal knowledge of the truth of the alleged confession by the other

individual. Id.

24-KA-233 19

In Preston, the State presented the testimony of the victim who stated that a

“young black male” armed with a gun took her purse from her while she was

outside of her church. Id. at 214. Police officers then pursued a fleeing suspect,

who was later identified as the defendant, in the vicinity of the church shortly after

the robbery and tracked him to the house at 728 Filmore Street. Inside, the officers

discovered the defendant attempting to hide from police under a bed with his arms

and legs covered in mud, consistent with the fleeing suspect who had hidden

beneath the raised home. The police found the victim’s cell phone in a dresser

drawer located next to the area where the defendant was attempting to hide. Upon

further investigation the police found the other items stolen from the victim’s purse

in the same house where the defendant was apprehended, and a silver pistol,

consistent with the victim’s testimony, in the area where the police chased the

defendant before finding him inside the house at 728 Filmore Street.

This Court discussed that although the other witness’ testimony may have

suggested an alternative suspect, she also testified that she had no personal

knowledge as to the truth of the confession. The defendant did not put forth any

evidence tending to prove the truth of the alleged confession. Further, there was no

evidence that the man the witness identified was present at the house on Filmore

Street on the evening of the armed robbery. Id. This Court pointed out that, even

assuming that the confession was true, it found that the State presented sufficient

evidence to link the defendant to the crimes charged. Accordingly, this Court

concluded that the evidence of the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the

armed robbery sufficiently negated any possibility of misidentification, and that the

assignment of error was without merit. Id. at 214.

Defendant also cites to State v. Chism, 591 So.2d 383 (La. App. 2d Cir.

1991), and argues that the facts of the instant matter are similar. In Chism, the

defendant was convicted of armed robbery. Id. During the investigation of the

24-KA-233 20

robbery, the victim was shown a photographic lineup of suspects. At trial, the

victim testified that he selected the photo of the defendant. The victim also testified

that the defendant was not the perpetrator because the perpetrator “had two good

eyes” and one of the defendant’s eyes “is messed up or hurt or whatever.” In short,

“[t]he victim testified that the individual in the photo robbed him but, without

equivocation, that the individual seated in the courtroom did not.” Id. at 387 (J.

Hightower, concurring) (Emphasis in original).

The second circuit explained,

[t]he victim’s inability at trial to identify a suspect whom he had
previously selected (by photo) as the robber undermines the
credibility of his out-of-court identification. Such testimony is
analogous to impeached testimony, which as a general rule cannot
stand alone to convict. With no other evidence to name Chism as a
participant in the offense, and trial testimony that absolves him, the
prior out-of-court identification is simply insufficient to negate the
reasonable possibility of misidentification. State v. Brady, supra. Even
viewed in light most favorable to the state, Wright’s testimony
amounts to an internal contradiction on the critical issue of the case.

Id. at 386. (Citations removed).

The court found that “the out-of-court, unsworn, photo identification was

fatally weakened when the victim subsequently testified at trial that the defendant

was not the perpetrator and admitted that his photo identification could have been

mistaken because of the circumstances of the incident.” Id. Without any other

evidence to prove the defendant committed the offense, the court found the State

failed to persuade a rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that the

defendant was indeed the perpetrator, and it reversed his conviction and sentence.

Id.

However, in the instant matter, the State presented sufficient evidence to

prove Defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the crimes despite the victim’s

failure to identify him. Ms. Simonett stated that the man who robbed her at

gunpoint and took her car on April 24, 2022, was named “Ruga,” whom she had

24-KA-233 21

met the day before at Klean King car wash. She described “Ruga” as a Black male

wearing a dark shirt, dark pants, and a “do-rag” on his head. Ms. Simonett told

Detective Hymel that the perpetrator called her on April 24, 2022, at

approximately 9:00 to 9:30 p.m. and asked for a ride from Klean King to Riverside

Court Condominiums. Detective Hymel recovered surveillance video from Klean

King from April 24, 2022, that showed a black sedan, which he identified as Ms.

Simonett’s vehicle, arriving at 9:37 p.m. He identified a subject in dark clothing

walking toward the vehicle. He testified that the vehicle then traveled westbound

on Veterans Memorial Boulevard.

On April 29, 2022, Ms. Simonett’s vehicle was located near Lapalco and

Wall Boulevards in Gretna. Officer Riley noticed that the driver of the car was a

white female, and the passenger was a black male. The car was a black Chevrolet

Sonic, which belonged to Ms. Simonett. JPSO pursued the stolen vehicle as it fled.

The vehicle was recovered after it crashed into a residence and was totaled.

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. Davis, 269 So.3d at 1132.

A search of the totaled vehicle produced various items, including a black

backpack, Ms. Simonett’s debit card, a license issued to Kayla LeBlanc, and two

iPhones. The black iPhone found in Ms. Simonett’s vehicle had a photograph of a

black male with a short beard, wearing a “do-rag,” kissing a white female. An

extraction of the black iPhone found in Ms. Simonett’s vehicle reflected that the

device name was “Joshua’s iPhone,” the Apple ID was

“joshuadennis463@gmail.com,” and a snapchat name associated with the phone

was “rugaxsavage.” The phone number of the iPhone was 504-***-5991.

Phone records from Ms. Simonett’s phone revealed that she received phone

calls from 504-***-5991 on April 24 at 9:13 p.m. and 9:32 p.m. On April 11, 2022,

24-KA-233 22

9-1-1 received a call from 504-***-5991. The caller reported that his name was

Joshua, confirmed that he was calling from his phone, and advised that his

girlfriend, “Kayla,” was sick. The caller’s location was the Klean King car wash.

The red iPhone found in Ms. Simonett’s vehicle had notifications on the lock

screen. One of the notifications was an Instagram message from “rugaxsavage9.”

An extraction of the red iPhone revealed that it was registered to “Kayla LeBlanc”

with the e-mail “kkleblanc2617@gmail.com.” The 504-***-5991 phone number

was saved as “my favorite a**hole” and the e-mail address associated with that

contact was “joshuadennis463@gmail.com.” A search of the Instagram name

“rugaxsavage9” revealed numerous photographs of Defendant. A law enforcement

database search revealed that “Joshua Dennis” and “Joshua Martin” were the same

person. Photos found on Defendant’s Instagram captured him with a firearm in his

pocket standing in front of the Klean King car wash. Defendant’s “B” hand tattoo

was also captured in the photo.

Text messages between Defendant’s phone number and Kayla’s phone

number were discovered and included texts sent from April 22nd to April 26th.

One conversation included messages sent on April 24, 2022, at 9:44 p.m.

discussing a tracker and a “computer dash.” A message was also sent from Kayla

to Defendant that stated, “Get it.” The police extracted Google searches from

Kayla’s iPhone seeking information on vehicle tracking features that were

performed during the same time frame when the text messages were sent between

Defendant and Kayla on the evening of the robbery, April 24, 2022. The extraction

from Kayla’s phone also revealed a video dated April 25, 2022, that showed Ms.

Simonett’s vehicle. There was a “B” tattooed on the right hand of the person

filming the video.

24-KA-233 23

Location data from Defendant’s phone records revealed that he was near

Klean King at the times the phone calls were made to Ms. Simonett on the night of

the armed robbery.

After Defendant and Kayla were arrested, Kayla’s iPhone was collected and

searched. In an Instagram conversation from April 30, 2022, Kayla alluded to

being injured in a “real bad wreck.” Detective Hymel testified that Kayla identified

a picture of herself and the male as “Ruga.” She also identified the black bag and

red iPhone found in Ms. Simonett’s vehicle as her own. Detective Hymel also

testified that Klean King employees told him that Defendant was in a relationship

with a white female.

In his statement, Defendant eventually admitted to Detective Hymel that his

nickname was “Ruga”. He denied any involvement in the armed robbery or taking

of anyone’s vehicle though, and claimed that he and Kayla’s phones were stolen on

April 1, 2023. He insinuated that someone else had his phone and was pretending

to be him.

The jury heard Defendant’s statement and his denial of any involvement in

the crimes. The jury was also presented with the evidence that Ms. Simonett could

not identify Defendant in a photographic lineup as the perpetrator and her

testimony that the perpetrator was not in court. The jury heard Detective Hymel’s

testimony that Ms. Simonett did not mention that the perpetrator had dreadlocks or

any tattoos in her initial statement to the responding officer or in her statement to

the detective, which he believed was a “misremembrance.” The armed robbery

occurred on April 24, 2022. The photographic lineup procedure took place a few

months later in July 2022. Trial took place on December 4, 2023.

Considering the foregoing, although there was no in-court identification of

Defendant similar to Chism, supra, we find the State presented sufficient evidence

in this matter to prove the identity of Defendant as the perpetrator. In Chism, the

24-KA-233 24

earlier photo identification of the defendant was the only evidence that linked him

to the crime. In this case, the police were able to use cell phone records, social

media posts, and 9-1-1 records to identify Defendant and his girlfriend and

corroborate Ms. Simonett’s account of what occurred the night of the armed

robbery.

Despite the lack of identification by Ms. Simonett, similar to Preston, supra,

we find that the overwhelming amount of evidence that was presented to the jury

overcame Defendant’s claim of innocence, and the State proved Defendant’s

identity as the perpetrator. Therefore, we find that a rational trier of fact, viewing

the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found beyond

a reasonable doubt that the evidence was sufficient to find that Defendant

committed the offenses under the standard set forth in Jackson.

ERRORS PATENT

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. 5th Cir. 1990).

The trial judge failed to impose the mandatory fine required by La. R.S.

14:95.1(B). At the time the offense was committed, La. R.S. 14:95.1(B) required a

fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars to be

imposed. While an appellate court has the authority to correct an illegal sentence,

this authority is permissive rather than mandatory. La. C.Cr.P. art. 882. Defendant

appears to be indigent as he is represented by the Louisiana Appellate Project,

which represents indigent defendants in non-capital cases; therefore, we decline to

remand this matter for imposition of the mandatory fine as to count two. See

Woods, 376 So.3d at 1159.

Last, out of an abundance of caution, we advise Defendant that no

application for post-conviction relief, including applications that seek an out-of-

24-KA-233 25

time appeal, shall be considered if 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. Taylor, 20-215 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/28/21), 347 So.3d 1008,

1023.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s convictions and sentences are

affirmed.

AFFIRMED

24-KA-233 26

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-233
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE STEPHEN D. ENRIGHT, JR. (DISTRICT JUDGE)
MONIQUE D. NOLAN (APPELLEE) THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE) MARY CONSTANCE HANES (APPELLANT)

MAILED
ERIC CUSIMANO (APPELLEE)
HONORABLE PAUL D. CONNICK, JR.
(APPELLEE)
PIPER SCOTTON (APPELLEE)
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
200 DERBIGNY STREET
GRETNA, LA 70053