State of Louisiana v. James. L. Tabb

Judgment rendered April 10, 2024.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,514-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

JAMES L. TABB Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
Fifth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Richland, Louisiana
Trial Court No. F-2018-216

Honorable William Barham, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Peggy J. Sullivan

JAMES L. TABB Pro Se

PENNY WISE DOUCIERE Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

AMANDA MICHELE WILKINS
KENNETH DOUGLAS WHEELER
Assistant District Attorney

*****

Before COX, ROBINSON, and MARCOTTE, JJ.

MARCOTTE, J.

This criminal appeal arises from the Fifth Judicial District Court,

Parish of Richland, the Honorable William Barham presiding. Defendant,

James L. Tabb, was convicted of one count of attempted second-degree

murder, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of attempted armed

robbery. Tabb was sentenced to 50 years at hard labor for the attempted

second-degree murder conviction, 15 years at hard labor for the aggravated

burglary conviction, and 49 years at hard labor for the attempted armed

robbery conviction. The trial court ordered all sentences to run

consecutively. Tabb now appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm

defendant’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 27, 2018, Tabb was charged by bill of indictment with

attempted second-degree murder of Josh Butler in violation of La. R.S.

14:27 & 14:30.1, aggravated burglary of Josh and Alicia Butler in violation

of La. R.S. 14:60, and attempted armed robbery of Josh and Alicia Butler in

violation of La. R.S. 14:27 & 14:64. All offenses were alleged to have

occurred on August 9, 2018. Over the next four years, Tabb changed

counsel twice and numerous motions were tried at several hearings with trial

finally commencing on August 29, 2022, where the following evidence was

adduced.

Josh and Alicia Butler lived with their young son on Highway 425 a

few miles south of Rayville, Louisiana. Josh worked an international

offshore job which required him to be overseas part of the time, and Alicia

was a homemaker. In April 2018, after a search on Facebook Marketplace,

the Butlers hired Tabb to build a workshop on their property to give Josh a

devoted space of his own. Tabb told the Butlers that the total cost of the

project would be $13,000, that he needed $6,000 up front to begin, and that

he could be finished in 60 days. The Butlers paid Tabb $6,000 on April 20,

2018.

While Josh was working overseas, he instructed Alicia to pay Tabb an

additional $5,000, which Tabb said he needed for supplies and concrete.

However, by the end of July 2018, Tabb had not yet started the project. The

Butlers then informed Tabb that if he could not start the project, they would

have to hire someone else. By early August 2018, Tabb still had not started

the project and the Butlers told him they would be reporting him to the

authorities if he did not return their money.

On August 8, 2018, the Butlers spoke with Tabb about returning their

$11,000. He claimed to be in Arkansas but said that he would leave the

money in their mailbox later that night. The next morning, on August 9,

2018, the Butlers awoke at 5:00 a.m. and Josh checked their mailbox, but did

not find any money. Alicia then sent a text message to Tabb warning him

that they would go to the sheriff’s office if he did not meet them at a local

bank with their money.

At 5:55 a.m., Tabb finally replied and told the Butlers to check their

mailbox again. Josh immediately went outside and walked down the

driveway toward their mailbox. As he was walking down the driveway, he

heard a sound like “pssssst,” and felt something sharp hit him in his back

which brought him to his knees. Josh heard someone say “Shit!” and turned

to see Tabb running toward him from his left. When Josh tried to stand up,

Tabb hit him with a knife in the back of his head and about his face. Josh

described to the jury what happened next:
2

A: The next thing I know is he’s over there asking me
“Shut up” because I kept on asking him “Why are
you doing this?” “Shut up. Where’s the money?
Where’s the money? Where’s your safe? What’s
the combination to the safe?” And – and the whole
time I said “Why are you doing this? Why?” “I
want you to die.” And that was – and that’s all I
can remember after that.
Q: The James Tabb you saw behind the –
beside the tree, was it the same James Tabb
you had met with previously?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Any doubt in your mind?
A: No doubt in my mind. That is the last memory I
have. I can never see my son again. I can never
see my wife again.
Q: Okay. The last...
A: That man has destroyed my life.

As a result of Tabb’s vicious attack, Josh suffered multiple stab

wounds, both eyes were destroyed and both ears were punctured. He

is now blind, sustained brain damage, has a metal plate in his head,

and is unable to find a job.

While Josh was outside being attacked, Alicia was inside and

their son was sleeping in his bedroom. A person entered the front

door whom she identified as a black male with a bandana around his

face, carrying a shotgun in his right hand. The man demanded money

and to be taken to a safe.

Alicia, knowing nothing about a safe but wanting to direct the

intruder out of her house and away from her son, told the man that the

safe was in the garage. Once in the garage, the intruder quickly

discovered that there was no safe and no money, so he grabbed her by

the hair and dragged her outside. He then grabbed her mouth to

silence her screams, shoved her down on the grass and began

unzipping his shorts. The intruder then pulled out his penis with the

3

gun pointed at her head. He was already wearing a condom and

ordered Alicia to perform oral sex.

At some point, sensing that the intruder was distracted, Alicia

got up and began to run and scream for her husband. However, the

man hit her in the back of the head, causing her to fall, breaking her

tooth and glasses in the process. The man then got up behind her,

pulled down her underwear, stuck his penis inside her and tried to

rape her, but could not stay erect. He then shoved his fingers against

her genitals before giving up and walking back down the driveway

toward the street.

Alicia ran back into the house to call 911, but still had no idea

where her husband was or what had happened to him. Alicia’s 911

call was played for the jury.

At 6:09 a.m., the Richland Parish Sheriff’s Office (“RPSO”)

received Alicia’s 911 call and dispatched officers to the scene.

Lieutenant John Flowers (“Lt. Flowers”) was one of the first officers

to arrive and saw a man lying face down in the Butlers’ driveway

covered in blood. Lt. Flowers initially believed the man was dead

until he saw him move slightly. Lt. Flowers described Josh’s face and

body as a “bloody mess.” He also confirmed seeing a bow release at

the scene, which he found “very odd.”

Josh was transported by ambulance to Richardson Medical

Center and later airlifted in critical condition to the trauma center at

LSU-Shreveport after the bleeding in his brain was stabilized. In

addition to the deep lacerations on his back and scalp and being

stabbed in the eyes and ears, Josh also had a single, large, gaping star-
4

shaped wound on his lower back which was different in nature from

the multiple other stab wounds on his body. The emergency room

physician confirmed that this wound could have been caused by an

arrowhead tip.

Prior to the attempted murder and assault of the Butlers,

Terrance Miles (“Terrance”) and Tabb spent the night and early

morning hours buying liquor at Wal-Mart, playing cards, partying,

and having sex or trying to have sex with different women. Terrance

testified that he saw both a gun and a compound bow in Tabb’s truck

when he was with him on August 8, 2018. Tabb told Terrance that he

was going to call Josh and try to kill him.

Terrance saw Josh come out of the residence and witnessed

Tabb shoot Josh with the bow and arrow and then get on top of Josh,

“hitting” him with a knife, and slamming his head into a concrete

culvert on the driveway. Terrance confirmed that he used Tabb’s

shotgun to attempt to burgle the Butler residence and that after he

assaulted and raped Alicia, he went back to Tabb’s truck.

In a separate proceeding, Terrance agreed to plead guilty to

second-degree rape and attempted armed robbery, reduced from

aggravated burglary and attempted first-degree rape. The only

agreement of record was that the sentence would be subject to a 35-

year cap. Terrance’s plea agreement with the state was read into the

record and published to the jury.

On cross-examination, Terrance admitted that he initially lied to

police because he was scared and didn’t want to go to jail. Terrance

also admitted that the gun he used that morning did not look like the
5

picture of the gun in evidence. Contradicting the testimony of Alicia,

Terrance denied hitting her and testified that he did not attempt to rape

her but rather coerced her into starting oral sex.

Donnie Miles (“Donnie”), Terrance’s uncle, testified that at

around 6:00 a.m. on August 9, 2018, Tabb arrived at his house with

Terrance to pick Donnie up for work. Donnie told the jury that such

an early time was unusual since Tabb normally picked him up around

9:00 a.m. Donnie saw blood on Tabb’s arm and on the door of his

truck, and when Donnie asked him where it came from, Tabb told him

“I think I – I done killed a man.” Donnie also saw him wiping blood

off the driver’s side door. On cross-examination, Donnie said he

initially told police that Tabb told him “I hope I didn’t kill him.”

When they arrived at the construction work site in Bastrop,

Louisiana, Donnie noticed a tactical type 12-gauge shotgun in the

back of Tabb’s truck. Donnie remarked that it was unusual for a gun

to be there. Tabb agreed and told him to move the gun and put it

behind his seat. Donnie complied. Tabb then said he needed to make

a quick trip to the store alone. When Tabb returned, Donnie went to

retrieve his cigarettes from the truck, and the gun was gone.

RPSO Investigator Tyler Wade, who was a deputy at the time

the offenses were committed, testified that when he arrived at the

crime scene he searched for evidence and helped secure the perimeter.

Investigator Wade found the compound bow release in the area near

Josh’s body and also obtained key timeline videos for the hours

preceding and immediately following the crimes, including a Wal-

Mart surveillance video showing Tabb and Terrance entering the
6

Rayville store at 1:29 a.m., a Circle-K surveillance video placing

Tabb only a few miles from the Butler residence at 5:21 a.m., and a

video from the First Baptist Church, located a few miles from the

Butler residence, showing Tabb’s truck pass by at 6:29 a.m.

RPSO Captain Jerry Spencer, Jr. (“Capt. Spencer”), who

worked with the Louisiana State Police at the time of the crimes,

assisted in the crime scene investigation and traveled to Bastrop to

locate and arrest Tabb later that morning. Capt. Spencer also helped

secure Tabb’s white truck. In processing Tabb’s truck, he found

blood on the driver’s side door and the back portion of the steering

wheel.

Swabs were taken from the areas of the truck that contained

suspected blood and Deputy Jeremy Redding testified that in those

areas, the truck appeared wiped down and that there was a strong

chemical smell inside the cab of the truck. Investigators also retrieved

a knife and two shotgun shells from Tabb’s truck. A headlamp was

also found by the crime scene investigators in the area where the bow

release was recovered and where they found Josh.

Investigators interviewed Tabb and he denied any involvement,

telling them that he was in Bastrop at 6:00 a.m. that morning, which

would have been at the time the crimes were committed.

The state called Michael Fegley as an expert witness in

geolocation analysis and he was accepted as an expert. Mr. Fegley

used the phone records and data provided by AT&T to map the

journey taken by Tabb’s phone on August 9, 2018. Mr. Fegley

showed the cell towers that Tabb’s phone was communicating with,
7

including a tower in Rayville, Louisiana, less than an hour before the

attack on the Butlers, a tower just south of the Butler residence when

Tabb texted the Butlers to check their mailbox minutes before the

attempted murder, and towers heading north through Rayville toward

Bastrop as Tabb picked up Donnie and drove to the work site in

Bastrop.

On cross-examination, Mr. Fegley admitted that the phone

records carried a warning to “exercise caution” in using the records,

“as location data sorts from various data bases, which may cause

location results to be less than accurate.” Mr. Fegley further admitted

on cross-examination that the records allowed him to estimate the

location of Tabb’s phone, rather than to place it in a specific location

at a specific time.

The defense presented its own expert witness, David Burgess,

who was accepted as an expert in the field of geolocation of cellular

devices. Mr. Burgess testified that as many as nine cell towers were

used by Tabb’s phone on the morning of this incident and that there is

no way to conclusively say which tower was used at any given time.

Mr. Burgess further testified that “everything presented [by Mr.

Fegley] was also speculation.”

Tammy Rash (“Ms. Rash”), the technical reviewer for the

November 2018 DNA forensic analysis report, testified regarding the

match for the blood found on the inside door handle of Tabb’s truck to

Josh’s DNA swab. Ms. Rash served as the administrative reviewer on

the February 2020 DNA forensic analysis report and testified about

8

finding Josh’s DNA on the bow release, the exterior of the head lamp,

and batteries.

Paul Berry, Director of the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab’s

DNA Section, testified that if the testing analyst was no longer

working at the lab and available to testify at trial, then it would be

standard procedure for the analyst who technically reviewed the case

to testify regarding the results of the analysis since they also would

have reviewed the data, testing procedure, and results.

Julia Naylor was qualified as an expert witness in the area of

forensic DNA analysis including the TrueAllele system at a June 1,

2022, pretrial hearing. She testified at trial about the TrueAllele

analysis that she performed on the forensic data from the bow release.

Her analysis confirmed the match of Josh as the main DNA

contributor and Tabb as a minor DNA contributor.

Tabb bought the firearm and the compound bow from a pawn

shop in West Monroe in 2017. Evidence of the purchases was

introduced through a former employee who worked at the store at that

time.

West Carroll Parish Sheriff Scott Matthews (“Sheriff

Matthews”), who spent 28 years with the Louisiana Department of

Wildlife and Fisheries, testified as an expert in the use and function of

compound bows. Sheriff Matthews identified the bow release found

at the crime scene as the type of release used for a compound bow.

He also confirmed that there was no other use for a bow release and

that the distance from where the bow release was found and where

Josh was shot would have been a “chip shot” for the bow user.
9

Sheriff Matthews explained that the accuracy of an arrow shot from a

compound bow can be impacted if the proper technique is not used or

if the target is moving. In such cases, he said, the shot may not

penetrate the target.

In his closing argument, the state’s prosecutor made the

following statements:

1. “You saw evidence of DNA that put the victim’s DNA in
James Tabb’s truck.”

2. “I imagined what [Alicia] was going through, having an
AR15, AK47, or a tactical shotgun pointed at my head I
don’t know that I’d be able to tell you exactly what it was.”

3. “I’m not sure I really understood everything [Mr. Burgess]
said and he never did a report.”

4. “The telephone tower is right here, ladies and gentlemen,
here’s the Butlers’ house. The cell phone – that tower that’s
connecting to it is right here.”

On September 9, 2022, the case was submitted to the jury and

after approximately two hours the jury returned unanimous

convictions against Tabb for one count of attempted second-degree

murder, one count of the responsive verdict of attempted aggravated

burglary, and one count of attempted armed robbery.

A presentence investigation was ordered and the report was

submitted to the trial court and filed under seal at a sentencing hearing

on November 2, 2022. After reading the report, victim impact

statements, and letters in support of Tabb into the record, the trial

court sentenced Tabb to 50 years at hard labor for the attempted

second-degree murder conviction, 15 years at hard labor for the

attempted aggravated burglary conviction, and 49 years at hard labor

for the attempted armed robbery conviction, with all sentences to run
10

consecutively and credit for time served. The trial court failed to

restrict benefits for Tabb’s attempted second-degree murder and

attempted armed robbery convictions.

Tabb was given notice of his appellate and post-conviction

relief time limits. His trial counsel lodged a general objection to the

sentence but no motion to reconsider his sentences was filed. Tabb

now appeals.

DISCUSSION

Excessive Sentence

For his first counseled assignment of error, Tabb argues that his

consecutive sentences totaling 114 years are excessive, especially

considering that he only engaged in one course of criminal conduct

and that two of the three counts were committed solely by his

codefendant. Tabb argues that the trial court should have given more

consideration to his lack of criminal history and the fact that he was

working as a fire captain and in construction at the time of the

incident. He claims that he is not among the worst class of offenders,

and thus should not have been given near maximum sentences for

each conviction. Tabb further claims that the trial court did not

provide sufficient justification to order that his sentences run

consecutively rather than concurrently.

The state argues that Tabb is barred on appeal from attacking

the consecutive nature of his sentences since he failed to urge any

specific objections to his sentences and failed to file a written motion

to reconsider them. Notwithstanding the fact that Tabb failed to

preserve his right to have the sentences reviewed on appeal, the state
11

argues that the trial court was well within its discretion in imposing

consecutive sentences because the trial court conducted a thorough

analysis of the relevant factors under La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1.

La. C. Cr. P. art. 881.1(E) provides as follows:

Failure to make or file a motion to reconsider sentence or to
include a specific ground upon which a motion to reconsider
sentence may be based, including a claim of excessiveness,
shall preclude the state or the defendant from raising an
objection to the sentence or from urging any ground not raised
in the motion on appeal or review.

Under this article, a defendant must set forth the specific

grounds upon which the motion is based in order to raise an objection

to the sentence on appeal. State v. Woods, 49,031 (La. App. 2 Cir.

5/14/14), 139 So. 3d 1085, writ denied, 14-1130 (La. 1/9/15), 157 So.

3d 597. If the defendant does not allege any specific ground for

excessiveness or present any argument or evidence not previously

considered by the court at original sentencing, then the defendant does

not lose the right to appeal the sentence, he is simply relegated to

having the appellate court consider the bare claim of excessiveness.

State v. Humphries, 48,235 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/25/13), 124 So. 3d

1177.

To constitute an excessive sentence, a reviewing court must

find that the penalty is so grossly disproportionate to the severity of

the crime as to shock the sense of justice or that the sentence makes

no reasonable contribution to acceptable penal goals and, therefore, is

nothing more than the needless imposition of pain and suffering.

State v. Griffin, 14-1214 (La. 10/14/15), 180 So. 3d 1262. The trial

court has wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within the

12

statutory limits and such sentences should not be set aside as

excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of that discretion. State

v. Williams, 03-3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So. 2d 7. On review, an

appellate court does not determine whether another sentence may

have been more appropriate, but whether the trial court abused its

discretion. Id.; State v. Fontenot, 51,072 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/11/17),

211 So. 3d 1236.

La. C. Cr. P. art. 883, relating to concurrent and consecutive

sentences, provides in pertinent part:

If the defendant is convicted of two or more offenses based on
the same act or transaction, or constituting parts of a common
scheme or plan, the terms of imprisonment shall be served
concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all
be served consecutively. Other sentences of imprisonment shall
be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that
some or all of them be served concurrently.

Concurrent sentences arising out of a single course of conduct

are not mandatory, and consecutive sentences under those

circumstances are not necessarily excessive. State v. Nixon, 51,319

(La. App. 2 Cir. 5/19/17), 222 So. 3d 123, writ denied, 17-0966 (La.

4/27/18), 239 So. 3d 836; State v. Scott, 50,920 (La. App. 2 Cir.

11/16/16), 209 So. 3d 248, writ denied, 17-0353 (La. 11/13/17), 229

So. 3d 478; State v. Hebert, 50,163 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/18/15), 181

So. 3d 795. It is within the court’s discretion to make sentences

consecutive rather than concurrent. State v. Nixon, supra; State v.

Robinson, 49,677 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/15/15), 163 So. 3d 829, writ

denied, 15-0924 (La. 4/15/16), 191 So. 3d 1034.

A judgment directing that sentences arising from a single

course of conduct be served consecutively requires particular
13

justification from the evidence or record. State v. Nixon, supra.

When a sentencing court directs that multiple sentences arising from a

single course of conduct be served consecutively, the sentencing court

is required to state the factors considered and its reasons for the

consecutive sentences. State v. Craft, 49,731 (La. App. 2 Cir.

2/26/15), 162 So. 3d 539, writ denied, 15-0544 (La. 1/25/16), 184 So.

3d 1288. The factors to be considered include: (1) the defendant’s

criminal history; (2) the gravity or dangerousness of the offense; (3)

the viciousness of the crimes; (4) the harm done to the victims; (5)

whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the

public; (6) the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation; and (7)

whether the defendant received a benefit as part of a plea bargain. Id.;

State v. Baker, 49,175 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/27/14), 148 So. 3d 217.

However, the sentencing court’s failure to articulate specific

reasons for consecutive sentences does not require remand if the

record provides an adequate factual basis to support consecutive

sentences. State v. Nixon, supra; State v. Boudreaux, 41,660 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So. 2d 898, writ denied, 07-0058 (La.

11/2/07), 966 So. 2d 591. 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 in sentencing. State v.

Dale, 53,736 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/13/21), 309 So. 3d 1031.

The maximum and minimum sentences for attempted second-

degree murder are found under La. R.S. 14:27 & 14:30.1. The

sentencing range for attempted murder is 10 to 50 years at hard labor

without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
14

Tabb’s sentence of 50 years at hard labor fell within the statutory

limits for that crime.

The maximum and minimum sentences for attempted

aggravated burglary are found under La. R.S. 14:27 & 14:60. The

sentencing range for attempted aggravated burglary is six months to

15 years at hard labor. Tabb’s sentence of 15 years at hard labor fell

within the statutory limits for that crime.

The maximum and minimum sentences for attempted armed

robbery are found under La. R.S. 14:27 & 14:64. The sentencing

range for attempted armed robbery is zero to 49½ years without

benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Tabb’s

sentence of 49 years at hard labor fell within the statutory limits for

that crime.

In addition to sentencing Tabb within the statutory limits for

each crime, the trial court fully articulated the art. 894.1 factors,

noting the particularly gruesome nature of his crimes. The trial court

also fully justified its reasons for ordering the sentences to run

consecutively. The court considered the PSI report, powerful and

moving victim impact statements from Josh and Alicia, and letters in

support of Tabb.

Tabb, despite his previous career and standing before this

offense, committed and took part in a particularly heinous crime in

which he and his codefendant lured Butler from his home and

attacked him, leaving him permanently disabled. Tabb’s actions have

devastated a family and the trial court’s sentence properly held him

accountable. This assignment of error is without merit.
15

Geolocation

In his second counseled assignment of error, Tabb argues that

cell phone geolocation was erroneously allowed to suggest his precise

locations, when in fact there is no basis for finding pinpoint locations

of a cell phone by historical data. Tabb avers that the AT&T records

could not provide any “specific location” where he was at any time,

and that the records arrived with a warning that the data should not be

used as it was in this case.

The state argues that the geolocation data from Tabb’s cell

phone was not erroneously admitted or applied. The state notes that

Louisiana courts have been qualifying and accepting the use of cell

phone data for geographical analysis evidence for several years, and

that appellate courts have long recognized this evidence as sufficient

to uphold convictions. The state further points out that the jury

simply found its expert on cell phone geolocation to be more credible

than Tabb’s expert on that issue, and there is no trial court error.

Louisiana courts have qualified and accepted the use of cell

phone data for geographical analysis evidence for several years and

appellate courts have recognized this evidence as sufficient to uphold

convictions. For instance, in State v. Davis, 13-275 (La. App. 3 Cir.

10/23/13), 129 So. 3d 554, writ denied, 14-0010 (La. 6/13/14), 140

So. 3d 1186, cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1014, 135 S.Ct. 678 (2014), the

court of appeal held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

admitting testimony from a special agent as an expert in the field of

historical cell site analysis.

16

In State v. Saltzman, 13-276 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/23/13), 128 So.

3d 1060, the state introduced an FBI special agent as an expert in

historical cell site analysis who, similar to Mr. Fegley in this case, was

able to demonstrate the cell towers used as well as the range of the

towers. The defendant in that case challenged the admission of the

agent’s testimony on appeal and the court of appeal upheld the trial

court’s ruling admitting the agent’s testimony and affirmed the

conviction.

In State v. Caballero, 22-0441 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/4/22), 356

So. 3d 389, writ denied, 22-01777 (La. 4/25/23), 359 So. 3d 982, a

sheriff’s deputy testified as an expert in cell phone data analysis and

used the cell phone records to determine the location of the

defendant’s boyfriend’s phone. The court of appeal found the

evidence sufficient to uphold the convictions.

As these cases make clear, Louisiana courts have been

qualifying cell phone geolocation experts and recognizing this area of

expertise as a valid evidentiary source for at least ten years.

Furthermore, both the state and Tabb presented their own experts

regarding the issue, and the jury was free to weigh the credibility and

information presented by both experts. It is not erroneous if the jurors

found Mr. Fegley and his evidence more credible.

Finally, we note that the state’s evidence was not solely

dependent upon the geolocation of Tabb’s cell phone; rather, there

was a plethora of evidence, including, but not limited to: (1) Josh’s

testimony and identification of Tabb as his attacker; (2) Donnie’s

testimony that Tabb had blood on his arm and on the door of his truck,
17

(3) Tabb’s confession that thought he killed someone, (4) the shotgun

seen in Tabb’s truck, and (5) the expert testimony regarding Josh’s

DNA found on, among other things, the bow release. This assignment

of error lacks merit.

Plea Form

For Tabb’s final counseled assignment of error, he argues the

state’s use of Terrance’s plea form without a sentence deprived him of

a due process defense. He asserts that the jury should have been able

to consider exactly what benefit Terrance got for testifying, and that

the presentation of his plea form with a narrative of Tabb’s alleged

crimes was prejudicial to him.

In response, the state argues that Tabb waived the right to

appeal that claim since there was no contemporaneous objection at

trial. However, even if Tabb did not waive the claim on appeal, the

state argues that he failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice through

the introduction of the plea agreement since his counsel questioned

Terrance extensively about the agreement and his motivations for

testifying.

The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule is to put the

trial judge on notice of an alleged irregularity, allowing him the

opportunity to make the proper ruling and correct any claimed

prejudice to the defendant, procedural irregularity, or evidentiary

mistake. State v. Benoit, 17-187 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/29/17), 237 So.

3d 1214.

Here, Tabb argues for the first time on appeal that the state’s

use of Terrance’s plea form without a sentence deprived him of a due
18

process defense because the jury should have been able to consider

what benefits his codefendant received for testifying against him.

However, argument is limited to those grounds raised at trial; a new

basis for objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. La. C.

Cr. P. art. 841(A). Since there was no contemporaneous objection at

trial, Tabb waived his right to raise this claim on appeal.

Even if Tabb had properly raised this claim on appeal, it still

lacks merit. The record reflects that the state reviewed the agreement

with Terrance, indicating that he would plead guilty to a “responsive

charge of second-degree rape and the charge of attempted armed

robbery” and receive a “thirty-five year sentencing cap” which was

read before the jury. Moreover, Tabb’s right to cross-examine

Terrance and ask him about any leverage the state held over him was

clearly not infringed upon, because Tabb’s counsel questioned

Terrance extensively about the plea form and his motivations for

testifying. This assignment of error is without merit.

Pro Se Assignments of Error

In his first pro se assignment of error, Tabb argues that the

court erred in authorizing the testimony of a DNA expert who did not

conduct the actual DNA analysis and that this error violated his Sixth

Amendment right to confrontation. However, the crime lab director

Mr. Berry testified that it was standard procedure for Ms. Rash, one of

three reviewers on both DNA reports, to testify regarding the results

of the analysis. Furthermore, Ms. Rash testified that the technical

reviewer has the critical role of ensuring all the work done was

technically correct, the lab work was proper, and that the conclusions
19

are the same conclusions she would have reached had she been the

testing analyst.

In Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 131 S. Ct. 2705,

180 L. Ed. 2d 610 (2011), the United States Supreme Court ruled that

the testimony of a scientist who signed the certification or performed

or observed the test reported in the certification was necessary for

forensic science evidence. Here, Ms. Rash met those requirements

since she served as the technical reviewer on the 2018 report and the

administrative reviewer on the 2020 report. Accordingly, this

assignment of error lacks merit.

Tabb claims in his second pro se assignment of error that the

court erred by allowing an untestable Cybergenetics program,

specifically, the TrueAllele analysis and report that was admitted at

trial. However, the record is clear: there was no objection at trial to

the use of the TrueAllele program or its reliability, and Ms. Naylor

was present for cross-examination regarding her ability and

qualifications to use the program. This assignment of error lacks

merit.

Tabb’s third pro se assignment of error is that his three

convictions somehow constituted a double jeopardy violation. The

appropriate standard for double jeopardy claims is the Blockburger

test and Tabb’s three convictions hold up under Blockburger.

In Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76

L.Ed. 306 (1932), the United States Supreme Court set out a precise

rule of law to determine if a double jeopardy violation has occurred:

20

The applicable rule is that where the same act or
transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct
statutory provisions the test to be applied to
determine whether there are two different offenses
or only one, is whether each provision requires
proof of an additional fact which the other does
not.

Tabb’s convictions do not meet the Blockburger test1 since each

provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.

Attempted second-degree murder requires proof of the specific intent

to kill which is not an element of aggravated burglary or armed

robbery. Aggravated burglary requires the entry (or attempted entry)

of an inhabited dwelling which is not an element of attempted murder

or armed robbery. Armed robbery requires the taking (or attempted

taking) of something of value from someone with the use of force.

This element is not required for attempted second-degree murder or

aggravated burglary.

Tabb fails to meet the burden of proof under his double

jeopardy claim since each of his three convictions requires the proof

of at least one additional fact which is not required by the other two

provisions. This assignment of error has no merit.

Tabb’s final pro se assignment of error alleges prosecutorial

misconduct due to improper remarks made by the prosecutor. Claims

of prosecutorial misconduct must adhere to the contemporaneous

objection rule and a defendant waives his right to raise the issue on

appeal if no objection is lodged at trial. State ex rel. E.D.C., 39,892

1
Louisiana courts need only apply the analytical framework set forth in Blockburger in
analyzing questions of double jeopardy. State v. Frank, 16-1160 (La. 10/18/17), 234 So.
3d 27.
21

(La. App. 2 Cir. 5/11/05), 903 So. 2d 571, writ denied, 05-1568 (La.

1/27/06), 922 So. 3d 544.

This is another instance of Tabb arguing issues on appeal that

were not first raised at the trial court. When the complained-of

statements were made by the prosecutor, no contemporaneous

objection was lodged nor was any motion for a mistrial filed by Tabb.

Tabb is therefore precluded from seeking review of such statements

with this court. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without

merit.

Error Patent Review

Our error patent review of the record revealed the trial court

failed to impose proper restriction of sentence benefits as to Tabb’s

attempted second-degree murder and attempted armed robbery

convictions. However, since the corresponding statutes for those

crimes required the sentences to be served without benefits, this is

harmless error.

La. R.S. 15:301.1(A) provides in pertinent part that the failure

of a sentencing court to specifically state that all or a portion of the

sentence is to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or

suspension of sentence shall not in any way affect the statutory

requirement that all or a portion of the sentence be served without

benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. There is no

need to remand for correction of the sentencing error. When a district

court fails to order statutorily mandated service of sentence without

benefits, the sentence will automatically be served without benefits for

the required time period. State v. Pierce, 51,145 (La. App. 2 Cir.
22

2/15/17), writ denied, 17-0661 (La. 4/6/18), 240 So. 3d 184; State v.

Williams, 00-1725 (La. 11/28/01), 800 So. 2d 790.

We order that the entirety of the hard labor sentences for Tabb’s

attempted second-degree murder and attempted armed robbery

convictions be served without benefits. We also order that the trial

court minutes be amended to reflect this sentencing adjustment.

CONCLUSION

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

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

23