Tinasha Richardson v. Destiny Winder

Judgment rendered March 4, 2020.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 53,386-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

TINASHA RICHARDSON Plaintiff-Appellee

versus

DESTINY WINDER Defendant-Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 617958

Honorable Michael Pitman, Judge

*****

DESTINY WINDER In Proper Person,
Appellant

TINASHA RICHARDSON In Proper Person,
Appellee

*****

Before WILLIAMS, STEPHENS, and McCALLUM, JJ.

WILLIAMS, C.J.

The instant appeal was filed by the defendant, Destiny Winder, from

the trial court’s grant of a protective order in favor of the plaintiff, Tinasha

Richardson. Finding no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, we

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Both of the parties in this case are residents of Caddo Parish. On July

18, 2019, Tinasha Richardson (“Tinasha”) filed a petition for protection

pursuant to La. R.S. 46:2171, et seq. (Louisiana’s Protection from Stalking

Act). In her petition, Tinasha alleged that Destiny Winder (“Destiny”) had

intentionally and repeatedly engaged in behaviors that caused her to be

alarmed or suffer emotional distress, such as, following and harassing her;

appearing uninvited at her workplace and other places; stalking,

harming/threatening to harm her; and making threatening public posts to

social media.1

Based on the petition, the trial court granted a temporary restraining

order and ruled Destiny to appear in court on August 6, 2019, to show cause

why a protective order should not issue. Approximately a week later, on

July 24, 2019, Destiny filed a petition for protection, claiming that Tinasha,

who is married to her minor daughter’s father, has stalked and threatened

Destiny and the child “non-stop” since the child’s birth on August 17, 2015.

Although the trial court declined to issue a temporary restraining order,

Destiny’s petition also was set for hearing on August 6, 2019.

1
Screenshots of two Facebook posts allegedly made by Destiny, one on May 6, 2019, and the
other on July 13, 2019, were attached to Tinasha’s petition for protection.

Tinasha and Destiny appeared for the show cause hearing before the

trial court on August 6, 2019. Neither party was represented by counsel.

After considering the evidence presented by both parties, the trial court

found that Tinasha met the requisite burden of proof, but Destiny did not;

therefore, the court only issued the protective order sought by Tinasha.

Destiny has appealed from the trial court’s grant of a protective order

in favor of Tinasha.2

DISCUSSION

Destiny filed a pro se brief in which she argued that the protective

order against her was erroneously issued because the trial judge disregarded

the testimony she presented, failed to consider a lack of evidence from

Tinasha and, accepted as credible “uncorroborated, hearsay” testimony from

Tinasha.3

A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a protective order will not be

reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Coy v. Coy, 46,655 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 7/13/11), 69 So. 3d 1270; Culp v. Culp, 42,239 (La. App. 2 Cir.

6/20/07), 960 So. 2d 1279, writ not considered, 07-1836 (La. 10/5/07), 964

So. 2d 378; Craig v. Bishop, 19-166 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/23/19), 283 So. 3d

521; Pellerano v. Pellerano, 17-302 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/12/19), 275 So. 3d

947, writ denied, 19-0756 (La. 9/17/19), 279 So. 3d 379. The trial court,

sitting as the trier of fact, is in the best position to evaluate the demeanor of

the witnesses, and its credibility determinations will not be disturbed on

appeal absent manifest error. Id.

2
Destiny has not appealed from the trial court’s denial of her request for a protective order.
3
Tinasha did not file an appellate brief.
2

At the show cause hearing, the trial court first took up Tinasha’s

request for a protective order. The judge explained that Tinasha, as the

petitioner, would bear the burden of proving sufficient grounds for him to

issue a protective order against Destiny.

Tinasha testified that the harassing behavior, which sometimes took

place in front of her children, included Destiny waiting for her to get off

work, then speeding up behind Tinasha in her (Destiny’s) car as if she were

going to hit Tinasha’s vehicle; following and videotaping Tinasha

“everywhere” she goes; parking her car in the lot of Tinasha’s workplace so

much that her boss asked her to start bringing her lunch to work so Tinasha

could avoid confrontation/contact with Destiny; and making threats that she

is going to beat Tinasha up and bash in her head. Tinasha testified about a

specific incident involving such threats by Destiny at the Family Dollar store

when Tinasha had gone to shop.

Tinasha also introduced into evidence screenshots of two threatening

posts on her Facebook page alleged to have been posted by Destiny. The

trial judge read the posts aloud4 and asked Destiny whether she had made

4
Destiny Henderson
May 6 (2019) at 1:09 p.m.
Tinasha girl stop playing on my job phone .. real talk cause u
still wanna play games but little do u know that was my
manager that answered that phone while ya’ll taking bout ya’ll
from ace loan .. Google the number old dumb ass girl . And I
send all that to your husband .. b*tch you still worried bout me
why huh tell me that .. but you pose to be so f*cking smart ….
So u wanna start harassing huh I got some for that play with
me cause u shole can get your second ass whooping.

Destiny Henderson
July 13 (2019) at 3:33 a.m.
I see im still ON you b*tches mind u gotta trow ya lil middle
finger up when u pass by riding with your n*gg* but won’t
pump the breaks for sh*t stop hoe u feeling Froggie then JUMP
BUT WE KNOW U AINT .. AND DIDN’T U SEE ME IN THE
DOLLAR STORE YESTERDAY AND WALKED YA ASS RIGHT
BACK OUT WITH THE QUICKNESS BABY GIRL STOP TRYING
TO PICK CAUSE U KNOW HOW THESE HANDS COMING
Already .. HONESTLY YOU WAS SPARED THE FIRST TIME AND
DIDN’T GET UR FULL ASS WHIPPING BUT WAS OVER THERE
3

them. Destiny admitted that she had made the posts and acknowledged that

they were both inappropriate, but excused her actions as angry responses to

behaviors on the part of Tinasha and Roderick (the father of Destiny’s child

who is now married to Tinasha).

The trial judge gave Destiny a chance to rebut Tinasha’s testimony.

Destiny stated that she has not followed Tinasha. Instead, she explained that

the two women live right around the corner from each other. Also, she

denied ever trying to hit Tinasha’s car. Furthermore, the other incidents that

Tinasha claimed were “stalking” were Tinasha “trying to turn it around on

her.” Destiny testified that she was driving somewhere whenever Tinasha

would say that Destiny was stalking her. Tinasha would also claim that

Destiny was in a parking lot to stalk or harass Tinasha when Destiny’s car

would be in the lot because she was shopping, taking her kids to the dentist,

or going to another place in the shopping center.

Destiny also called as a witness Breanica Smith, who was working at

Family Dollar on July 11, 2019. According to Ms. Smith, Destiny and her

family were in the back near the groceries, and Tinasha was in another area

of the store. When Tinasha heard Destiny’s voice, Tinasha left the store.

Ms. Smith stated that the two women did not say anything to each other

while at the store.5

When Destiny sought to offer notarized statements in further support

of her case, the trial court informed her that only live witness testimony

BLEEDING AND KNOTTED UP TRYING TO PRESS CHARGES ON
ME SO STUP GUL IM TELLIN U NOW . . . THAT
B*TCH YES U . . . TINASHA . . . GUL F*ck U U THE LEAST OF MY
WORRIES STAY IN YOUR LANE HOE
5
Destiny also had her manager at the Waffle House testify about a hang-up call allegedly made by
someone at Tinasha’s alleged place of employment to Destiny’s workplace.
4

would be allowed. When the trial court gave Destiny an opportunity to

further address the court, Destiny stated:

I would like to say that I feel like something needs to be done
regarding the situation. It’s fine that she can keep her
protective order. . . . Yeah, I posted that post, . . the two posts,
but I don’t bother her anyway. But I have stuff that I could
have been filed on them harassing me . . . I have two binders
full of stuff and pictures and evidence that I could have been
filed, but because I’m not with the drama and the mess, I
haven’t.

You know, the only person I have to deal with is my daughter’s
father, not her. . . . And every (sic) since she’s moved back
here, it’s been non-stop drama. I have never been in so much
court in my life until now dealing with her, you know. I can
admit that I posted those posts, but that’s because I’m very
angry. . . .

So I just want to state that I do not harass her. You know, I do
have video proof of the – I did video her when we was at Pizza
Hut, because I was already there. . . . I feel as if when she saw
me right there, then [she] knew not to come in the parking lot
right then, knowing that [she] filed a restraining order on me.
So yeah, I did video it, and I’ve made a report as well . . . I’ve
never attempted to hit her car, I’ve never followed her or
anything, so I don’t know where all those incidents or whatever
she’s talking about are coming from.

At that time, the trial court stated that it found that the totality of the

evidence established sufficient grounds to issue the protective order sought

by Tinasha. The trial court found particularly compelling Destiny’s

admission that she made the Facebook posts, which contained “very

threatening language.”

The trial court then allowed Destiny the opportunity to present

evidence in support of her petition for a protective order. However, finding

that Destiny failed to provide any specific evidence of threatening behavior

on the part of Tinasha sufficient to meet Destiny’s burden of proof, the trial

court denied Destiny’s request for the protective order.

5

There is no merit to any of Destiny’s assignments of error. The trial

court considered all of the evidence presented by the parties prior to making

its decision in this matter. We note that the Facebook posts made by Destiny

not only contain threats of physical violence, they allude to at least one past

violent encounter between the two women. The record, including Destiny’s

own evidence, shows that Tinasha was taking steps to avoid further conflict

or confrontations between the two women. Since Tinasha has married the

father of Destiny’s child, then necessarily the parties will have to put aside

their petty differences for the best interest of the child. Under the facts and

circumstances of this case, there is no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in

its decision to grant Tinasha’s petition for protective order.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs are assessed to the

defendant, Destiny Winder.

AFFIRMED.

6