State of Louisiana Versus Bernard R Williams

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-KA-568

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

BERNARD R WILLIAMS COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 23-4133, DIVISION "M"
HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS MORVANT, JUDGE PRESIDING

September 24, 2025

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY
CHIEF JUDGE

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

AFFIRMED
SMC
JGG
JJM

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
BERNARD WILLIAMS
Bertha M. Hillman

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
BERNARD R. WILLIAMS
Christopher A. Aberle

DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
BERNARD R. WILLIAMS
In Proper Person

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Thomas J. Butler
Darren A. Allemand
Matthew Whitworth
Theresa King

CHEHARDY, C.J.

Defendant, Bernard R. Williams, appeals his conviction and twenty-year

sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. For the following

reasons, we affirm Mr. Williams’s conviction and sentence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 27, 2023, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of

information charging defendant, Bernard R. Williams, with possession of a firearm

by a convicted felon in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1, on or about August 5, 2023.

Williams was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty on September 28, 2023.

Williams filed a pro se motion to suppress the evidence on October 16,

2023, and his counsel filed omnibus motions and an order for pre-trial motions,

including a motion to suppress the evidence on November 28, 2023. The motions

came for hearing on January 24, 2024, where the district court denied the motion to

suppress evidence.1 Trial of the matter commenced on June 11, 2024, and on the

following day, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged.2

Defense counsel filed a motion for new trial, which was denied by the

district court on July 25, 2024. After defense counsel indicated that Williams was

ready for sentencing, the district court sentenced Williams to twenty years

imprisonment at hard labor, without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension

of sentence, in addition to a one thousand dollar fine, which was suspended “in

consideration of the DOC sentence.” The district court ordered the sentence to run

consecutively to any and all other sentences which Williams may be serving and

concurrently to Williams’s misdemeanor conviction of resisting an officer in case

1
The district court also denied a motion to suppress statement, but the result of that motion is not
before this Court on appeal.
2
The district court simultaneously tried Williams’s misdemeanor charge for resisting an officer in
case number 23-4557 and found Williams guilty.

24-KA-568 1

number 23-4557. On August 26, 2024, defense counsel timely filed a motion for

appeal, which the district court granted on August 27, 2024.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Deputy Michael Morrison

Deputy Morrison of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (“JPSO”) testified

that on August 5, 2023, while he was on night patrol, he was driving westbound on

Morris Boulevard3 in Jefferson, Louisiana, when he crossed over Gelpi Avenue

and observed a black male riding in the opposite direction on a bicycle with no

lights. The male was also pushing another bike by holding its handlebars. Deputy

Morrison explained that illumination of the male’s bike was required at night and

that, in his opinion, the biker’s action of pushing another bike was odd, suspicious,

and raising “enough reasonable suspicion” that the bike could not have been his.

Because of his suspicion, Deputy Morrison made a U-turn towards the suspect. He

testified that the male made a left turn onto Gelpi Avenue going southbound.

According to Deputy Morrison, as he turned onto Gelpi Avenue, the suspect pulled

into a yard, which Deputy Morrison believed was located at 561 Gelpi Avenue.

The suspect rode his bike behind an SUV and up to a gate at the end of the

driveway into the backyard.

Deputy Morrison stated that he pulled over and made contact with the

suspect. He introduced himself and asked the suspect why he had two bikes and

why he was pulling into the driveway at that time of the night. The suspect

explained that he was returning the bikes to the guy that lived there. Deputy

Morrison testified that because he typically did not see people in that area at that

time of night, he asked the suspect to return with him to his car. He described the

suspect as acting rather nervous and kept saying, “No, I need to take the bikes,

drop them off.” Deputy Morrison was able to get the suspect to walk back to his

3
The correct name of the street is “Morris Place.”

24-KA-568 2

car, but the suspect walked on the other side of the SUV parked in the driveway,

causing Deputy Morrison to lose sight of the suspect. Deputy Morrison explained

that he maneuvered around and walked back with the suspect to his unit. He

testified that the suspect appeared nervous and was “double talking.” Deputy

Morrison asked the suspect whether he had any weapons on his person, to which

the suspect responded, “No.” Deputy Morrison began patting down the suspect

and as he was at his midback, the suspect began to pull away. He advised the

suspect to stop, but when the suspect attempted to take off, he grabbed the

suspect’s arm. The suspect “yanked his arm free” and ran off. Deputy Morrison

testified that the suspect, who he described as younger than himself, got away from

him. According to Morrison, the entire interaction was quick, lasting

approximately forty-five seconds to one minute in duration.

Deputy Morrison testified that the suspect took off heading northbound on

Gelpi Avenue, turned left on Morris Place, and then right onto Tucker Avenue.

Deputy Morris searched the area from Gelpi Avenue to Central Avenue and up to

the railroad tracks near Earhart Expressway. He noticed that there were no trains

stopped on the tracks at the time, and that there was no “impediment” to stop

someone from traversing across the tracks quickly. Deputy Morrison then got on

“the radio” and notified officers that the suspect was running. When he lost sight

of the suspect, Deputy Morrison went back to his police unit in order to continue

searching for him.

Deputy Morrison testified that although he could not find the suspect, other

officers were assisting him in the search to locate the suspect. He informed

officers of the suspect’s description, which was “approximately 5’7” to 5’10” …

140 to 170 pounds,” and was wearing a dark blue shirt, tan brown pants, and had a

scruffy, stubble beard and hair. Deputy Morrison stated that Officer Jairen Pichon

and Deputy Justin McCubbins notified him that they had stopped an individual,

24-KA-568 3

Bernard Williams, that matched the general description of the suspect. Deputy

Morrison went to the location where Officer Pichon and Deputy McCubbins were

detaining the suspect, and while the suspect had a beard, he was not the suspect

who fled from Deputy Morrison. He explained that the individual being detained

was wearing a navy-blue shirt and shorts.

Officer Jairen Pichon

At trial, JPSO Officer Pichon testified that on August 5, 2023, while he was

on patrol, he heard a request over the radio from Deputy Morrison for assistance

with a subject who had fled a traffic stop. He stated that Deputy Morrison reported

the subject was a “black male clad in dark clothing.” Officer Pichon and other

officers, including Deputy Justin McCubbins, began canvassing the area, and they

located an individual matching the general description walking in the middle of

Airline Highway. Officer Pichon recalled that when he and the other officers

approached the suspect to question him, he appeared “somewhat hostile.” When

the suspect was ordered to get down on his knees and failed to comply, Officer

Pichon pulled out his taser, and Deputy McCubbins pulled out his handgun. When

the officers eventually got the suspect on his knees, officers were able to secure

him in handcuffs.

Officer Pichon advised the suspect that he was being detained for

investigative purposes, because he matched the description of the suspect who fled

another officer. Officer Pichon told the suspect that once the officers obtained his

information, and if Deputy Morrison did not identify him as the suspect, he would

be released. According to Officer Pichon, he obtained the information from the

suspect in good faith, believing he was the individual who had fled from Deputy

Morrison. Officer Pichon twice advised the suspect of his Miranda rights due to

his initial failure to comply with Officer Pichon’s instructions. Before securing the

suspect in the rear of a police unit, while the officers were conducting a search of

24-KA-568 4

his person, they observed the suspect move his hands down towards his left back

pocket. Officer Pichon then retrieved a small black semi-automatic pistol from the

suspect’s back pocket. According to Officer Pichon, his colleagues were rendering

the weapon safe when they discovered that the pistol was loaded. The suspect told

the officers that he was on parole. Officer Pichon made an in-court identification

of Mr. Bernard Williams as the suspect he encountered on Airline Highway and

subsequently arrested.

Officer Pichon testified that he was equipped with a body-worn camera

during the encounter with Mr. Williams. He stated that the footage captured Mr.

Williams in the middle of the road and that the timestamp reflected that it was

August 5, 2023, at 11:54 p.m.

Officer Pichon stated that his initial contact with Mr. Williams, to the point

where he placed Mr. Williams under arrest, took approximately fifteen minutes.

He testified that he placed Mr. Williams under arrest “in good faith,” because

Deputy McCubbins sent a photo of Mr. Williams to Deputy Morrison, and Deputy

Morrison verified that the person in the photo was the subject that ran away from

him. Officer Pichon explained that eventually Deputy Morrison arrived at the

location and informed him that Mr. Williams was not the man who actually fled

from him.

Deputy Michael Morrison

Deputy Morrison was recalled by defense counsel at trial and testified that

he recalled “putting out” that the suspect who ran away from him was wearing a

blue shirt and khaki or brown pants. Deputy Morrison’s body-worn camera

footage of his encounter with the suspect who fled from him was played for the

jury. Deputy Morrison confirmed that the man was wearing a blue shirt and brown

pants. Deputy Morrison stated that he may have told Deputy McCubbins that the

suspect could have taken off his brown pants. He explained that in the photo he

24-KA-568 5

received from Deputy McCubbins, the subject’s head was tilted forward and he

was wearing a black shirt, but that he did meet the “general description.” Deputy

Morrison told the officers that the subject in the photo looked like the suspect who

had fled from him. He told the officers he would meet them in a couple of

minutes. According to Deputy Morrison, the officers knew the subject they were

looking for had fled from Deputy Morrison and that he was going to be arrested for

flight from an officer.

Dona Quintanilla

Ms. Quintanilla, a latent print supervisor for JPSO’s crime lab, was accepted

as an expert in latent print processing and analysis. She testified that prior to trial,

she obtained Mr. Williams’s fingerprints and placed them on a ten-print card. She

also reviewed a certified conviction packet associated with Mr. Williams’s former

guilty plea in case number 08-5286 as to possession of cocaine, which contained

two copies of Mr. Williams’s fingerprints taken on August 3, 2009. According to

Ms. Quintanilla, the fingerprints in the conviction packet matched the fingerprints

she obtained from Mr. Williams prior to trial.

Aaroneisha Hunter

Ms. Hunter testified that she had five children, and Mr. Williams was the

father of one of them. She explained that on July 16, 2023, there was a shooting at

her home in New Orleans East, during which two of her children were injured.

While Mr. Williams was not living with her at the time of the shooting, because

Ms. Hunter became frightened afterwards, she moved in with him shortly

thereafter. According to Ms. Hunter, Mr. Williams was also upset and afraid.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On appeal, Mr. Williams alleges three assignments of error: (1) his

maximum sentence of twenty-years imprisonment at hard labor is constitutionally

excessive; (2) the police lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify

24-KA-568 6

the stop, detention, and handcuffing him; and (3) his photo was so unclear as to

depict nothing more than a “generic black male,” obscuring the fact that he was not

the wanted suspect and, thus, did not give rise to probable cause for the arrest.

DISCUSSION

I. Constitutional Excessiveness of his Sentence

In his first assignment of error, Mr. Williams argues that his maximum

sentence is constitutionally excessive because it is grossly disproportionate to the

severity of the crime and is a needless infliction of pain and suffering. He argues

that although the district court gave reasons for imposing the sentence, it did not

give consideration to mitigating circumstances. He contends that when he was

arrested, he told officers he needed the gun for protection and that this was

corroborated by Ms. Hunter’s testimony of the shooting at her house. Mr.

Williams asserts that maximum sentences are imposed in cases involving the most

serious violations of the described offense for the worst kind of offender of which

he is not.

In response, the State argues the district court did not impose an excessive

sentence and did not abuse its broad sentencing discretion. It asserts the legislative

purpose of La. R.S. 14:95.1 is to limit possession of a firearm by persons who have

committed certain specific serious felonies and who have demonstrated a

dangerous disregard of the law. The State contends that the district court did

consider the sentencing factors in La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1. The State acknowledges

that while Mr. Williams argues he needed the gun to protect his family, the district

court observed that, at the time of this offense, Mr. Williams’s family was nowhere

near him and the court did not believe that outweighed Mr. Williams’s carrying a

gun in public. According to the State, the present case does not present a scenario

in which Mr. Williams needed the gun in self-defense or in defense of others. The

State notes that the district court considered Mr. Williams’s previous convictions

24-KA-568 7

and his use of an expletive when the jury verdict was read. The State also asserts

that Mr. Williams will be able to earn “good time” pursuant to La. R.S. 15:571.3.

Before issuing Mr. Williams’s sentence, the district court judge asked

defense counsel whether there was anything by way of mitigation that she wanted

to present. Defense counsel responded that a La. R.S. 14:95.1 conviction was

usually incidental to a drug, robbery, or murder charge. She argued that in the

instant matter, Mr. Williams was not doing anything other than crossing the street,

and that it was merely a “twist of fate” that he got “caught up in the way he did.”

The State responded that, in considering Mr. Williams’s “cert pack,” if Mr.

Williams would have waited a couple more years, he would not have been in this

situation because the ten-year cleansing period would have elapsed. The State also

noted that Mr. Williams deliberately decided to possess a firearm during this

period when he knew he should not possess one.

Before issuing Mr. Williams’s sentence, the district court judge stated:

The Court notes that Louisiana Code of Criminal
Procedure Article 894.1 provides sentencing guidelines.
The Court notes also that with respect to 95.1, there is a
mandatory jail sentence of not less than five, no more
than twenty years. That is without the benefit of
probation, parole or suspension of sentence and a fine of
not less than $1,000, nor more than $5,000. It is an
“and” and not an “or.”

In considering the factors that the Court should consider,
the Court notes that the following seem to be appropriate
without going through all 22. The ones that are just
applicable here and the Court did consider is that the
offender used a dangerous weapon in the commission of
the offense. Just based on the nature of the charge,
having the weapon is the charge.

The Defendant’s criminal conduct and a mitigation fact is
that the Defendant’s criminal conduct either caused or
threatened serious harm by having the firearm. The
Court does find there was a threat of serious harm, and
the Defendant did not contemplate his criminal conduct
would cause or threaten serious harm.

24-KA-568 8

Under mitigation also there was substantial grounds
tending to excuse or justify the Defendant’s criminal
conduct though failing to establish a defense. Mr.
Angelette did present a defense indicating that Mr.
Williams’ family had been previously attacked. The
Court notes at the time of this offense, however, the
family was nowhere near Mr. Williams, and the Court
does not believe that that weighs in mitigation of Mr.
Williams’ possessing a firearm out on a public street.

And then the Court is also to look at 28 in mitigation.
The Defendant has no history or prior delinquency or
criminal activity or has led a law-abiding life for a
substantial period of time before the commission of the
instant crime. While the time was substantial, the Court
notes that the Court was informed back on October 19th,
2023, at pretrial, that Mr. Williams was a quad plus and
had a previous 95.1 from 2019 for which he was already
backing up 20 years. That is an aggravating factor.

The Court also notes that the Court is authorized to
consider other relevant aggravating circumstances, and I
think this was very offensive, Mr. Williams. You might
not have known I heard it, but when the jury verdict was
read, you called the jury a bunch of bitches. I do not
appreciate that. It was inappropriate, and all of these
factors considered show that you had no remorse for your
behavior, no remorse for what happened.

The failure to 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 constitutional excessiveness only. State v. Harmon, 19-570 (La. App.

5 Cir. 9/9/20), 301 So.3d 1278, 1288, writ denied, 20-1160 (La. 10/14/20), 303

So.3d 306. This Court has held that when the specific grounds for objection to the

sentences, including alleged non-compliance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, are not

specifically raised in the district court, they are not included in the bare review for

constitutional excessiveness, and the defendant is precluded from raising these

issues on appeal. State v. Clark, 19-518 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/24/20), 296 So.3d 1281,

1291, writ denied, 21-62 (La. 3/9/21), 312 So.3d 585. Here, defense counsel did

not file a motion to reconsider sentence and only stated, “Your honor, note our

objection to the sentence[.]” Trial counsel did not argue, as appellate counsel does

24-KA-568 9

now on appeal, that the district court did not adequately consider mitigating

circumstances. Accordingly, Mr. Williams is limited to a review of his sentence

for constitutional excessiveness only. See Clark, 296 So.3d at 1291.

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 20

of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of excessive punishment. A

sentence is considered excessive, even if it is within the statutory limits, if it is

grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense, or imposes needless and

purposeless pain and suffering. State v. Adams, 23-427 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/24/24),

386 So.3d 676, 683.

According to La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.4(D), the appellate court shall not set aside

a sentence for excessiveness if the record supports the sentence imposed. In

reviewing a sentence for excessiveness, the reviewing court shall consider the

crime and punishment in light of the harm to society and gauge whether the

penalty is so disproportionate as to shock the court’s sense of justice, while

recognizing the district court’s wide discretion. Adams, 386 So.3d at 676. In

reviewing a district court’s sentencing discretion, three factors are considered: (1)

the nature of the crime; (2) the nature and background of the offender; and (3) the

sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and other courts. However,

there is no requirement that specific matters be given any particular weight at

sentencing. State v. Kelson, 23-274 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/23), 379 So.3d 779,

784-85. A district court should consider the defendant’s personal history such as

age, family ties, marital status, health, employment record, as well as his prior

criminal record, seriousness of the offense, and the likelihood of rehabilitation in

determining an appropriate sentence. Adams, 386 So.3d at 686. 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.

24-KA-568 10

State v. Barnes, 23-208 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/23), 379 So.3d 196, 204, writ

denied, 24-136 (La. 9/24/24), 392 So.3d 1141.

At the time Mr. Williams committed the offense,4 the penalty provision for

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon provided that whoever was found

guilty of the crime should be “imprisoned at hard labor for not less than five nor

more than twenty years without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of

sentence and be fined not less than one thousand dollars or more than five

thousand dollars.” La. R.S. 14:95.1. Mr. Williams received a twenty-year

sentence at hard labor without benefits, and the district court suspended the one

thousand dollar fine.

Considering the nature of the crime, as well as the nature and background of

Mr. Williams, the record reflects that Mr. Williams was walking down the middle

of Airline Highway at 11:54 p.m. Officer Pichon testified that when he and other

officers approached Mr. Williams, he was hostile, did not comply with orders, and

resisted. Officer Pichon also testified that while searching Mr. Williams’s person,

he put his hands toward his left back pocket, which is where officers discovered a

loaded firearm.

Regarding the nature and background of Mr. Williams, the record shows that

Mr. Williams had a prior conviction for possession of cocaine, in violation of La.

R.S. 40:967(C). The trial judge stated that Mr. Williams had led a “law-abiding

life” for a substantial amount of time before the commission of the instant offense.

However, the trial judge also recognized that it was informed at a pretrial hearing

on October 19, 2023, that Mr. Williams was a “quad plus and had a previous 95.1

from 2019 for which he was already backing up 20 years.”

The third factor requires consideration of sentences imposed for similar

crimes by this Court and other courts. Although a comparison of sentences

4
See State v. Sugasti, 01-3407 (La. 6/21/02), 820 So.2d 518, 520.

24-KA-568 11

imposed for similar crimes may provide guidance, “[i]t is well settled that

sentences must be individualized to the particular offender and to the particular

offense committed.” State v. Mejia, 23-161 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/29/23), 377 So.3d

860, 889, writ denied, 23-1722 (La. 5/29/24), 385 So.3d 705. While comparison

with other similar cases is useful in itself and sets the stage, the focus of sentence

review remains on the character and propensities of the offender and the

circumstances of the offense. Id.

In State v. Stewart, 24-50 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/30/24), 398 So.3d 812, 818,

writ denied, 24-1445 (La. 2/19/25), 400 So.3d 931, the defendant was found guilty

of two counts of La. R.S. 14:95.1. The district court sentenced the defendant to

two twenty years sentences at hard labor without benefits to run concurrently. In

sentencing the defendant, the district court acknowledged the defendant’s previous

convictions, which all involved controlled dangerous substances. Id. at 824. This

Court discussed testimony that the defendant’s firearm was found with a live round

in the chamber and a full magazine. Id. at 825. It also discussed the defendant’s

previous convictions and stated that the jurisprudence showed that similarly

situated defendants with substantial criminal records received similar sentences to

the defendant. Id. at 826. This Court upheld the defendant’s sentences and found

that they were not constitutionally excessive. Id.5

Similarly, in State v. Charles, 20-498 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/5/21), 318 So.3d

356, the defendant was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon. The reviewing court found that the district court

implicitly considered the statutory sentencing guidelines. The defendant had five

prior felony convictions. Id. at 365. The revolver in the defendant’s possession

5
In its errors patent review, this Court found that the district court failed to impose the mandatory
fine required by La. R.S. 14:95.1, and because the defendant had private counsel, it remanded the matter
for the district court to hold a hearing under La. C.Cr.P. art. 875.1, to determine whether the mandatory
fine should be imposed. Stewart, 398 So.3d at 826.

24-KA-568 12

contained two spent rounds and a loaded round in the chamber. The reviewing

court found that the maximum sentence was not excessive. Id. at 367.6

In the instant matter, we find the district court did not abuse its broad

sentencing discretion by imposing the twenty-year sentence for Mr. Williams’s

conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The record shows that

Mr. Williams placed officers, and any possible bystanders, in danger when he was

walking in the middle of Airline Highway at night with a loaded firearm. The

district court acknowledged defense counsel’s “defense” that suggested that Mr.

Williams’s family had been previously attacked and that he had the gun for

protection; however, the facts reflect that Mr. Williams was alone at the time he

was walking down the middle of Airline Highway and was not near his family.

Further, we consider Mr. Williams’s misdemeanor conviction of resisting an

officer that stemmed from the same incident. We also take into account Mr.

Williams’s criminal history, along with his status as a quadruple offender.

Additionally, we note that the district court suspended the mandatory fine required

by La. R.S. 14:95.1.

After review, we find the record adequately supports Mr. Williams’s

sentence and indicates that the sentence is not constitutionally excessive. This

assignment of error lacks merit.

II. Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity and Probable Cause for
Arrest7

In his second and third assignments of error, Mr. Williams contends that the

police lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify their stopping,

detaining and handcuffing him. He also argues that the photo taken of him was so

6
In its errors patent review, the court found that the district court failed to impose the mandatory
fine required by La. R.S. 14:95.1. However, it did not remand the matter for imposition of the fine.
Charles, 318 So.3d at 359.
7
Assignments of error numbers two and three are addressed together because they are related and
because both appellate counsel and Mr. Williams argue that they are reasons for why the district court
erred in denying the motion to suppress.

24-KA-568 13

unclear as to depict nothing more than a “generic black male”—thus obscuring the

fact that he was not the wanted suspect—and did not give rise to probable cause for

his arrest. Specifically, Mr. Williams argues that this general description does not

support a finding of reasonable suspicion and that it is not authorized under Terry

v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Mr. Williams contends

that the district court’s alternative ruling, that the stop was justified because Mr.

Williams was acting erratic and walking in the middle of Airline Highway, was

erroneous because the “erratic behavior” happened after he was placed under

arrest. He further argues that while Officer Pichon agreed with the State’s

suggestion that it was “inherently suspicious for an individual to be walking down

the middle of Airline Highway in the middle of the night,” it was unclear how such

behavior could give rise to an articulable suspicion that a crime had been or was

about to be committed. Mr. Williams posits that the district court’s reliance on

these factors was misplaced.

In response, the State claims the investigatory stop of Mr. Williams was

supported by reasonable suspicion. In particular, it argues that Officer Pichon’s

reliance on Deputy Morrison’s description of a black male clad in dark clothing

was not too generic of a description, and Mr. Williams’s other actions and features

gave Officer Pichon reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.

In reply, Mr. Williams argues that the objective factors the State relies upon

as Officer Pichon’s basis for reasonable suspicion are inadequate. He contends

that while the State claims he was “sweating profusely,” the State conceded at the

hearing that it was August in New Orleans. He reiterates that the alleged hostile

behavior occurred after and as a result of the stop, and cannot be used as a basis for

reasonable suspicion under these circumstances. He further contends that his

action of walking in the “middle” of the street before his detention is a “mere

unelaborated assertion” that fails to define criminally suspicious behavior.

24-KA-568 14

As to having probable cause to arrest him, Mr. Williams argues that even if

the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop, they had no

probable cause to arrest him. Mr. Williams avers the district court appears to have

accepted that probable cause arose when Officer Pichon concluded that Mr.

Williams was the suspect the police were searching for. Mr. Williams contends

that the officer’s subjective belief is not a test nor was it relevant that Officer

Pichon acted in good faith when he arrested Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams asserts that Officer Pichon claimed that Deputy Morrison

“confirmed” from the photograph sent to him that Mr. Williams was the person

who fled from him. He contends, however, that Deputy Morrison testified that he

only told Officer Pichon that he could not rule Mr. Williams out from the dark

photo. He argues that if Officer Pichon’s version of events is accepted, Deputy

Morrison acted unreasonably by confirming a positive identification from a photo

in which Mr. Williams’s facial features could not be discerned due to the

downward angle of his head. Alternatively, he argues that if Deputy Morrison’s

testimony was to be believed, Officer Pichon acted “objectively unreasonable” by

arresting Mr. Williams before Deputy Morrison arrived on the scene, despite

knowing that Deputy Morrison said Mr. Williams “could be” the person he was

searching for if Mr. Williams had changed his clothes.

In response, the State contends that Officer Pichon had probable cause to

arrest Mr. Williams when Deputy Morrison responded to him that Mr. Williams

was the suspect who had earlier fled. It argues that the fact that, upon closer

examination, Deputy Morrison realized that Mr. Williams was not the subject, does

not negate the probable cause to arrest at that moment. The State avers that to the

extent Mr. Williams complains about credibility issues relative to the police

officers, the district court’s determination as to the credibility of witnesses on a

motion to suppress is to be accorded great weight on appeal unless unsupported by

24-KA-568 15

the evidence. It further argues that the determination of probable cause does not

require the resolution of conflicting evidence as required at trial, and the facts need

not eliminate all possible innocent explanations to support a finding of probable

cause.

Alternatively, the State argues that even if Officer Pichon did not have

probable cause to arrest Mr. Williams, he had reasonable suspicion to detain him

until Deputy Morrison arrived. It contends that having the reasonable suspicion to

do so, and given Mr. Williams’s combativeness, Officer Pichon would have the

right to perform a limited search of weapons under Terry, supra, and La. C.Cr.P.

art. 215.1, and ultimately discover the firearm.

In reply, Mr. Williams argues that, contrary to the State’s assertion, he does

not complain about the officers’ credibility, but rather, that Officer Pichon’s or

Deputy Morrison’s testimony was “hopelessly irreconcilable” regarding what

Deputy Morrison actually conveyed to Officer Pichon regarding the photo of Mr.

Williams. He argues that at the suppression hearing, Officer Pichon’s testimony

was self-serving and “arrest-saving” so that the district court would not have

known that his testimony would contradict Deputy Morrison’s trial testimony. Mr.

Williams further argues that, regardless, there was no probable cause to arrest him

in either version.

A. Suppression Motion and Hearing

On October 16, 2023, Mr. Williams filed a pro se motion to suppress the

evidence wherein he urged that the evidence to be used against him was not seized

or obtained incidental to a valid arrest and/or search, but instead, was the result of

an unlawful search without a warrant and without probable cause. On November

28, 2023, defense counsel filed omnibus motions, which also included a motion to

suppress the evidence, wherein counsel argued that Mr. Williams’s constitutional

24-KA-568 16

rights, as guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and Louisiana, had

been violated because the evidence was illegally and unlawfully obtained.

At the motion hearing held on January 24, 2024, Officer Pichon testified that

on August 5, 2023, he responded to a request for assistance by another officer. He

stated that Deputy Morrison encountered a suspicious individual who “took off”

from him. He explained that he and other officers were called to the area and were

canvassing Airline Highway. They observed Mr. Williams walking in the middle

of the highway, sweating profusely, and matching the description provided by

Deputy Morrison; that is, “a black male clad in dark clothing.” He stated that Mr.

Williams was wearing a dark t-shirt and long denim shorts. He testified that he

and Deputy McCubbins approached Mr. Williams and informed him that he

matched the description of a suspect they were looking for and that he would be

detained pending an investigation. Officer Pichon stated that Mr. Williams was

placed in hand restraints for officer safety and that Mr. Williams was “a little

elevated.” He explained that Deputy Morrison was contacted via the radio and told

that they had detained a black male matching the description of the suspect who

fled. Deputy Morrison asked for a photograph of the individual. He stated that he

and Deputy McCubbins sent the photograph of Mr. Williams to Deputy Morrison,

who confirmed that Mr. Williams was the individual who had fled from him.

Officer Pichon further testified that after receiving the confirmation from

Deputy Morrison, which he received in “good faith,” he advised Mr. Williams of

his Miranda rights and explained that he was going to be placed under arrest.

Officer Pichon stated that Mr. Williams conveyed that he understood his rights and

told the officers that he was on parole. Officer Pichon testified that before he was

able to search Mr. Williams “incident to arrest,” Mr. Williams began reaching

towards the air, and he asked Mr. Williams what he was searching for. Officer

Pichon then searched Mr. Williams’s pockets and found a firearm in his back

24-KA-568 17

pocket. Officer Pichon told the other officers on the scene about his discovery of

the weapon. He testified that Mr. Williams’s name was searched in the system,

and it was determined that he was a convicted felon. Mr. Williams was then

placed under arrest for felon in possession of a firearm. Officer Pichon testified

that, ultimately, he and the other officers were told that Mr. Williams was actually

not the suspect who fled from Deputy Morrison.

At the hearing, defense counsel argued that Mr. Williams was bald and that

it was an “outstanding feature” that did not go out as part of the description of the

suspect. She argued that the description provided was that the suspect had short

hair and was wearing either brown pants or brown shorts, depending on the

document read.8 Defense counsel stated that Mr. Williams was wearing long

shorts and that it would be unreasonable to believe that he could have taken off his

pants and was wearing the shorts underneath, because pants would not fit over Mr.

Williams’s shorts. She argued that Mr. Williams did not match the description that

was broadcast over the radio and was not found in the vicinity of the street where

the suspect had fled from Deputy Morrison.

The State responded that the officers needed only a “reasonable articulable

suspicion” that Mr. Williams had or was about to commit a crime, and that Officer

Pichon articulated a number of reasonable suspicions that drew his attention to Mr.

Williams, who was sweating, acting erratically, and walking down the middle of

Airline Highway at night. The State claimed that Officer Pichon was facilitating a

search for a suspect who ran from another officer, and he was within the law to

conduct an investigatory stop and conduct a Terry pat-down search. It argued that

it was at this point that “a new offense had been discovered,” i.e., the concealed

8
During the hearing, defense counsel referenced Deputy Morrison’s supplemental report, which
provided the suspect’s description as a “Black male, 5’7’ to 5’10,” 160 to 180 pounds with stubble black
hair and beard wearing brown pants and blue shirt.” Deputy Morrison did not testify at the suppression
hearing. Officer Pichon testified that he did not recall hearing this description and only recalled that “it
was a Black male clad in dark clothing.”

24-KA-568 18

weapon possessed by a felon. According to the State, there was probable cause for

the arrest based on the discovery of the weapon that arose out of the reasonable,

articulable suspicion that warranted the detention of Mr. Williams and the Terry

pat-down.

Defense counsel and the State stipulated that the incident occurred in August

and that it was hot at this time of the year in south Louisiana.

At the close of the suppression hearing, the district court ruled there was

“probable cause as to the stop,” finding that a request for assistance was sent out

and that the officer believed Mr. Williams matched the description of the suspect

and initially detained him. The district court explained that the incident occurred

at night, and even if there was not a call to officers for assistance, the fact that Mr.

Williams was walking in the middle of Airline Highway at that time of night, and

subsequent to the stop exhibited erratic behavior, is of concern to give officers

“probable cause to the initial stop.”

Regarding the “motion to suppress statement and motion to suppress

evidence,” the district court stated that the officer testified that he believed Mr.

Williams was the suspect who had fled from another officer and that Mr. Williams

was given his Miranda rights. The court stated that, after doing so, Mr. Williams

volunteered that he was on parole, and incident to the arrest, the firearm was

located “post-Miranda.” Consequently, the district court denied Mr. Williams’s

motion to suppress statement and evidence and “noted” defense counsel’s

objection.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 5

of the Louisiana Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and

seizures. State v. Abrego, 21-166 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/1/21), 334 So.3d 883, 888,

writ denied, 21-1949 (La. 2/22/22), 333 So.3d 450. In an effort to discourage

police misconduct in violation of those standards, evidence recovered as a result of

24-KA-568 19

an unconstitutional search and seizure may not be used in a resulting prosecution

against the citizen. State v. Farber, 18-353 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/14/18), 263 So.3d

457, 462. As a general rule, searches and seizures must be conducted pursuant to a

validly executed search warrant or arrest warrant. State v. Key, 23-167 (La. App. 5

Cir. 12/27/23), 379 So.3d 96, 115. Warrantless searches and seizures are per se

unreasonable unless justified by one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.

State v. Fuentes, 22-89 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/2/22), 353 So.3d 911, 915.

Law enforcement officers are authorized by La. C.Cr.P. art. 215.1, as well as

by state and federal jurisprudence, to conduct investigatory stops, which allow

officers to stop and interrogate a person who is reasonably suspected of criminal

activity. Terry v. Ohio, supra; State v. Fisher, 19-504 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/23/20),

307 So.3d 1204, 1220, writ denied, 21-130 (La. 5/4/21), 315 So.3d 219.

Reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop is something less than probable

cause and is determined under the facts and circumstances of each case by whether

the officer had sufficient facts within his knowledge to justify an infringement on

the individual’s right to be free from governmental interference. Fisher, 307 So.3d

at 1220. Police do not have to observe what they know to be criminal behavior

before investigating. Instead, the requirement is that the officers have a reasonable

suspicion of criminal activity. State v. McKnight, 22-499 (La. App. 5 Cir.

5/24/23), 366 So.3d 798, 804. Evidence derived from an unreasonable stop will be

excluded from trial. Id.

The determination of reasonable grounds for an investigatory stop does not

rest on the officer’s subjective beliefs or attitudes, but is dependent on an objective

evaluation of all the circumstances known to the officer at the time of his

challenged action. McKnight, 366 So.3d at 804. In determining whether an officer

acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his

inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch, but to the specific reasonable

24-KA-568 20

inferences that he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. A

reviewing court must take into account the totality of the circumstances, giving

deference to the inferences and deductions of a trained officer that might elude an

untrained person. An officer’s experience, his knowledge of recent criminal

patterns, and his knowledge of an area’s frequent incident of crimes are factors that

may support reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. Id.

Nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable

suspicion. State v. Jones, 12-640 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/30/13), 128 So.3d 436, 446.

When evaluating the totality of the circumstances, a defendant’s evasive conduct in

response to police presence is a factor that is accorded significant weight. Id. The

Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized, or implied, that the defendant’s flight

from police officers is the most important factor in the totality of the circumstances

analysis. Id.

Once an officer stops a person pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 215.1(B), the

officer may conduct a limited pat-down frisk for weapons if he reasonably believes

he is in danger or that the suspect is armed. State v. Gilbert, 23-121 (La. App. 5

Cir. 11/8/23), 377 So.3d 378, 387, writ denied, 23-1640 (La. 5/29/24), 385 So.3d

704. If, in the course of an Article 215.1 weapons frisk, an officer feels an object

whose contour or mass makes its identity as contraband immediately apparent, the

officer may seize it under the “plain feel” exception to the warrant requirement.

Id.

In a hearing on a motion to suppress, the State bears the burden of proof in

establishing the admissibility of evidence seized without a warrant. La. C.Cr.P.

art. 703(D); State v. Adams, 22-271 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/10/23), 364 So.3d 1272,

1282. A district court is afforded great discretion when ruling on a motion to

suppress, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Id.

In determining whether the district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is

24-KA-568 21

correct, an appellate court is not limited to the evidence presented at the motion to

suppress hearing, but may also consider pertinent evidence presented at trial. Id.

See also State v. Siekmann, 24-178 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/5/25), 406 So.3d 509, 520;

State v. Dorsey, 27,509 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/1/95), 662 So.2d 857, 860; and State v.

Greenwell, 32,249 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/18/99), 746 So.2d 29, 38.

We find the record supports the district court’s finding that Officer Pichon

had reasonable suspicion to stop Mr. Williams. At trial, Deputy Morrison testified

that after the suspect fled from him, he notified officers over the radio, informing

them of the suspect’s description, which was “approximately 5’7” to 5’10” . . . 140

to 170 pounds.” He testified that the suspect was wearing a dark blue shirt, tan

brown pants, and had a scruffy beard and hair.9 Deputy Morrison stated that when

he received a photo of Mr. Williams from the officers who arrested him, although

he had his head tilted forward, Mr. Williams met the “general description” of the

suspect who had fled from him. He testified that he told officers that the photo

looked like the suspect and he would be there shortly to confirm.

At the suppression hearing, Officer Pichon testified that he and other officers

were informed that a suspect had fled from Deputy Morrison, and they were called

to the area. They were canvassing Airline Highway in response to the call for

assistance, when they observed Mr. Williams walking in the middle of the

highway, sweating profusely, and matching the description of the suspect, “a black

male clad in dark clothing.” Officer Pichon testified that he and Deputy

McCubbins approached Mr. Williams and informed him that he would be detained

pending an investigation because he matched the description of an individual they

were looking for. Officer Pichon testified that Mr. Williams acted somewhat

hostile and did not want to comply. According to Officer Pichon, after Mr.

Williams complied and was handcuffed, Deputy Morrison was sent a photograph

9
It is unclear whether Deputy Morrison conveyed this information when he requested assistance.

24-KA-568 22

of Mr. Williams, and he confirmed that the photograph was the suspect who had

fled from him. He stated that after the confirmation was received, he read Mr.

Williams his Miranda rights and informed him that he would be placed under

arrest. Mr. Williams voluntarily informed officers that he was on parole. Officer

Pichon stated that when he proceeded to search Mr. Williams incident to the arrest,

Mr. Williams put his hands down toward his back pocket. He asked Mr. Williams

what he was reaching for and located a firearm in Mr. Williams’s back pocket.

Mr. Williams argues that the description of “a black male clad in dark

clothing” was too generic to equate to a reasonable suspicion, and the general

description could not support a finding of reasonable suspicion under Terry, supra.

We disagree. The testimony from both the suppression hearing and trial reflects

that this is not the only factor from which Officer Pichon based his reasonable

suspicion. It is unclear from the evidence presented how close in proximity Airline

Highway was to the location in which the suspect had fled from Deputy Morrison.

However, the testimony appears to reflect that Deputy Morrison made a call for

officers to canvass the area to search for the suspect, who had fled from him at

approximately 11:34 p.m. After the officers responded, they encountered Mr.

Williams walking in the middle of Airline Highway. Officer Pichon commented

this was in fact illegal.10 The encounter with Mr. Williams occurred at

approximately 11:54 p.m., twenty minutes after the suspect had fled from Deputy

Morrison. Testimony reflected that Mr. Williams was sweating profusely and

10
La. R.S. 32:216 provides, in pertinent part:
A. Where sidewalks are provided, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon
an adjacent highway.
B. Where sidewalks are not provided, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall,
when practicable, walk only on the left side of the highway or its shoulder, facing traffic
which may approach from the opposite direction.
***
In addition to stopping Mr. Williams based on the reasonable suspicion that he was the suspect
who fled from Deputy Morrison, it appears that Mr. Williams could have also been stopped based on a
violation of La. R.S. 32:216.

24-KA-568 23

acted hostile when he was approached by officers. Under the circumstances, we

find the record supports the district court’s determination that the officers had

reasonable suspicion to stop Mr. Williams.

B. Probable Cause

An officer may make a warrantless arrest when the officer has probable

cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed an offense. State v.

Barker, 19-223 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/11/19), 285 So.3d 581, 589. Probable cause to

arrest exists when the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer are

sufficient to justify a man of ordinary caution in believing that the person to be

arrested has committed a crime or was committing a crime. Id. While mere

suspicion is insufficient to justify an arrest, a police officer need not have sufficient

proof to convict in order to arrest. Id.

A search incident to a lawful arrest is a well-recognized exception to a

warrantless search. Barker, 285 So.3d at 590. In a search incident to a lawful

arrest, a police officer can search the suspect’s person and the area within his

immediate control in order to remove weapons and prevent destruction of

evidence. Id.; See State v. Ayo, 08-468 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/24/09), 7 So.3d 85, 100,

writ denied sub nom. State ex rel. Ayon v. State, 09-1026 (La. 3/5/10), 28 So.3d

1006; State v. Harris, 00-1930 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/11/01), 786 So.2d 798, 804.

“Once a lawful arrest has been made, a warrantless search of the arrestee’s person

and of the area within his immediate control is permissible in order to remove any

weapon from his person and to prevent evidence from being destroyed.” State v.

Snavely, 99-1223 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/12/00), 759 So.2d 950, 957, writ denied, 00-

1439 (La. 2/16/01), 785 So.2d 840.

Here, testimony provided that Mr. Williams was first stopped because

officers were looking for the suspect who had fled from Deputy Morrison. Deputy

Morrison testified that the subject who had fled from him would have been arrested

24-KA-568 24

for “resisting arrest by flight.”11 While canvassing the area in response to the call

for assistance, officers discovered Mr. Williams walking in the middle of Airline

Highway at 11:54 p.m. Testimony reflects that Mr. Williams matched the

description of the subject who had fled from Deputy Morrison. Mr. Williams was

handcuffed for officer safety pending an investigation. At the suppression hearing,

Officer Pichon testified that once he received the confirmation from Deputy

Morrison that Mr. Williams was the subject who had fled from him, Mr. Williams

was placed under arrest for the crime of flight from Deputy Morrison. He stated

that he was about to conduct a search of Mr. Williams’s person incident to the

arrest, when Mr. Williams began reaching towards his back pocket and Officer

Pichon asked him what he was reaching for. Officer Pichon then searched his

person and discovered the firearm. Officer Pichon had confirmation from Deputy

Morrison that Mr. Williams was the subject who had fled from him.

As the Louisiana Supreme Court noted in State v. Johnson, 363 So.2d 684,

689 (La. 1978), “[o]ne of the most important elements in determining whether

probable cause existed is satisfied when the police know a crime has actually been

committed. When a crime has been committed and the police know it, they only

have to determine whether there is reasonably trustworthy information to justify a

man of ordinary caution in believing the person to be arrested has committed the

crime.”

Based on the confirmation received from Deputy Morrison, we find the

officers had the requisite probable cause to arrest Mr. Williams for the alleged

crime of resisting an officer by flight. Accordingly, the circumstances at issue

constituted probable cause to arrest Mr. Williams, the following search of Mr.

Williams’s person incident to the arrest was lawful, and the firearm was properly

11
See La. R.S. 14:108(B)(1)(a).

24-KA-568 25

seized. For these reasons, the district court properly denied the motion to suppress

evidence. These assignments of error are without merit.

ERRORS PATENT DISCUSSION

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). We note the following errors patent.

Post-Conviction Relief Advisal

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 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. Further, La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(C)

provides, in pertinent part: “At the time of sentencing, the trial court shall inform

the defendant of the prescriptive period for post-conviction relief either verbally or

in writing[.]” Here, according to the transcript, on July 25, 2024, after sentencing

Mr. Williams, the district court informed Mr. Williams that he had “two years after

the date of judgment and conviction of sentence have been filed to file for post-

conviction relief[.]” The minute entry from this date provides that the district court

informed Mr. Williams that he had “two (2) years after judgment of conviction and

sentence has become final to seek post-conviction relief.” Although the minute

entry appears to provide the proper advisal, the transcript does not. Where there is

a discrepancy between the transcript and the sentencing minute entry, the transcript

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

If a district court fails to advise, or provides an incomplete advisal, pursuant

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

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

of its opinion. State v. Britton, 22-476 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/10/23), 366 So.3d 652,

665. Accordingly, by way of this opinion, we advise Mr. Williams that no

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

24-KA-568 26

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 Britton, 366 So.3d at 665.

Mandatory Fine

At the time the offense was committed by Mr. Williams,12 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. Here, the trial judge stated “the Court assesses the

mandatory fine of $1,000.” The trial judge then informed counsel that the court

could set an ability to pay hearing, and defense counsel asked the judge to suspend

the fine. The trial judge then suspended the fine “in consideration of the DOC

sentence.”

In State v. Johnson, 11-238 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/28/11), 83 So.3d 1075, 1082,

the defendant was fined $1,000.00 as part of his sentence for his conviction of La.

R.S. 14:95.1, but the district court suspended the fine. This Court cited to its

opinion in State v. Jackson, 07-975 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/15/08), 985 So.2d 246, 252

n.4, where it “found no issue with the trial court’s suspension of the mandatory

fine imposed under La. R.S. 14:95.1.” This Court found no corrective action

necessary. Johnson, 83 So.3d at 1082. Accordingly, we find that no corrective

action is needed in the instant matter regarding the mandatory fine.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Williams’s conviction and twenty-year

sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon are affirmed.

AFFIRMED

12
See Sugasti, supra, 820 So.2d at 520.

24-KA-568 27

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. TRAN
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
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL
PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-KA-568
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS MORVANT (DISTRICT JUDGE)
BERTHA M. HILLMAN (APPELLANT) CHRISTOPHER A. ABERLE (APPELLANT) DARREN A. ALLEMAND (APPELLEE)
JULIET L. CLARK (APPELLEE) THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE)

MAILED
BERNARD WILLIAMS #509707 HONORABLE PAUL D. CONNICK, JR.
(APPELLANT) (APPELLEE)
CATAHOULA CORRECTIONAL CENTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY
499 OLD COLUMBIA ROAD MATTHEW WHITWORTH (APPELLEE)
HARRISONBURG, LA 71340 THERESA KING (APPELLEE)
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
200 DERBIGNY STREET
GRETNA, LA 70053