State of Louisiana v. Antonio C. Ealy

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

No. 55,582-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

ANTONIO C. EALY Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 366,025

Honorable Ramona L. Emanuel, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: G. Paul Marx

JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

SUZANNA MORELOCK ELLIS
SENAE DENEAL HALL
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before PITMAN, STEPHENS, and ROBINSON, JJ.

ROBINSON, J.

Antonio Ealy was convicted as charged of first degree robbery by a

unanimous jury. He was sentenced to ten years at hard labor without benefit

of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Ealy’s appellate counsel has

filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.

1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704

So. 2d 241; and State v. Benjamin, 573 So. 2d 528 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990).

Appellate counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

For the following reasons, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm

Ealy’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS

Near midnight on March 29, 2019, a black male with his face covered

entered the Sonic restaurant located on Line Avenue in Shreveport,

Louisiana. At the time, the Sonic’s manager, Kala Smith, was training

another employee, Kimberly Tulley, about the procedures for closing the

restaurant and preparing the restaurant’s proceeds for deposit. The

restaurant’s surveillance cameras captured the male going to the area where

they were working and pointing a gun at them. As the two women fled the

restaurant, the male grabbed a deposit bag before also leaving the restaurant.

Ealy, who had been an employee at the restaurant until two weeks

earlier, was recognized on the surveillance video by the Sonic’s owner.

Detective Melvin Smith, with the Shreveport Police Department’s tactical

robbery unit, began investigating Ealy, who eventually confessed his crime

to the detective.

On September 16, 2019, Ealy was charged by bill of information in

Caddo Parish with first degree robbery in violation of La. R.S. 14:64.1. The

bill was subsequently amended twice to add details such as changing the

names of the victims.

A jury trial began in June of 2021. Kala Smith testified that when the

gunman entered the Sonic, she grabbed Tully and they ran out of the

restaurant. Smith, who had worked with Ealy for six to seven months, was

not entirely positive of the gunman’s identity in the immediate aftermath of

the robbery. However, when she later watched the surveillance video, she

recognized Ealy as the gunman based on the way he moved and his clothing.

She explained that the gunman was wearing the same pants that Ealy wore to

work. The video, which was played for the jury, showed Ealy grabbing the

deposit bag which the employees had started filling with the money from the

night shift. Smith had no doubt that it was Ealy who committed the crime.

Smith also testified that Ealy had attempted to contact her before trial.

Kimberly Tulley described how when Smith pulled on her arm, she

turned to see someone standing there with a gun. Tully, who had worked

with Ealy at the Sonic, recognized the gunman’s eyes and clothing. Tulley

testified that Ealy had distinctive eyes, and that some of the employees

referred to Ealy as “pretty eyes.” The gunman was also wearing the black

pants that Ealy wore to work, and the bandana covering the gunman’s face

was the same one that Ealy wore in his back pocket to work.

Tulley was reluctant to tell police at first about her suspicions of the

gunman’s identity on the chance that she was wrong. Before Tulley had a

chance to view the video, the store owner told her that it was Ealy on the

video. However, Tulley’s suspicions were confirmed when she watched the

video the next day. She also recognized the way that the gunman walked.

2

Tulley had no doubt that it was Ealy who pointed the gun at her and stole the

money, which amounted to less than $700.

Tulley also testified that Ealy contacted her by Facebook Messenger

following the robbery. Ealy admitted to the robbery, said there was no clip

in his gun, and asked her not to go to court.

Felicia Kelly is the owner and operator of the Sonic restaurant. She is

familiar with Ealy because she trained him as a cook. Ealy worked for four

to six months, and then later for a few days. Kelly explained she recognized

the gunman’s clothing because the black long-sleeve turtleneck shirt and

black jeans worn by him were what Ealy would sometimes wear to work

instead of the required Sonic uniform. She noticed that the way that the

gunman walked as shown on the video was similar to Ealy’s gait because

Ealy had a “little dip” in his walk. Kelly also recognized the gunman’s eyes

and forehead as belonging to Ealy. Kelly had no doubt that it was Ealy

shown on the video robbing her restaurant.

Kelly testified that $654.19 was stolen, and that Ealy later returned

$750. She also testified that Ealy called her, and at first denied robbing the

store. However, he admitted to doing it, apologized, and said he was on

drugs. He also asked her not to come to court.

Detective Smith testified that he separately spoke with Kala Smith and

Tulley in the early morning hours after the robbery. Both told him that an

unknown black male entered the store armed with a handgun. When Kelly

showed the video footage to him, she remarked that she believed she knew

the individual who robbed the store. She told him that the gunman looked

similar to Ealy based on his body language and what he was wearing.

Detective Smith interviewed Ealy without success on April 4. The next day,
3

Ealy’s stepfather called Detective Smith to say that he had information about

the robbery. When Ealy was interviewed on April 5, he told Detective

Smith that he had lost his rent money at the casino the day of the robbery.

Later, as he drove past the Sonic, he thought to himself that he could rob it

to make money as he was familiar with the Sonic’s closing procedure. Ealy,

who claimed to the detective that he was armed with a BB gun that he

discarded following the robbery, said he took between $650 and $700 from

the restaurant.

On June 23, 2021, Antonio Ealy was convicted by the jury as charged

of first degree robbery. A motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal was

filed on October 6, 2021. Ealy’s counsel argued that the evidence was

insufficient to establish that he committed the first degree robbery. The

motion was denied.

A sentencing hearing was held on April 12, 2022. The court stated it

had considered letters and emails on Ealy’s behalf, a doctor’s note from

when Ealy was younger concerning attention deficit disorder, and his

criminal history. The court also considered the La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1

guidelines and concluded that Ealy was in need of correctional treatment and

that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the crime. Ealy

was sentenced to ten years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole,

or suspension of sentence.

Ealy’s trial counsel never filed a motion to appeal either his

conviction or his sentence. On March 2, 2023, Ealy filed an application for

post-conviction relief. He sought an out-of-time appeal, which was granted

on April 5, 2023. Appellate counsel was assigned to Ealy.

4

Appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.

By order dated November 29, 2023, this court held the motion in abeyance.

The order noted that Ealy had been notified of the pro se briefing deadline of

November 27. Ealy has not filed a pro se brief.

DISCUSSION

Our review of this record reveals no nonfrivolous errors regarding

Ealy’s conviction or sentence. The evidence supporting the conviction is

overwhelming. The sentence imposed is at the lower end of the sentencing

range. We discern no error patent on our review.

We note that on the second day of jury selection, during the

challenges for cause, defense counsel complained that because many black

jurors had indicated that they did not want to be involved in Ealy’s trial, they

would end up with no black jurors, which would be a violation of Batson v.

Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), or at the

very least a violation of the spirit of Batson. Defense counsel later argued

that it was unfair that most of the black panel members did not want to be on

the jury. The court ultimately denied the state’s challenges for cause for

three jurors. The state withdrew its challenge for cause for a fourth juror.

After the state used peremptory strikes against four black jurors,

defense counsel made a Batson challenge arguing that the four strikes were

based on race. The trial court found there was no prima facie showing by

the defense and denied the Batson challenge.

Defense counsel then argued that a disproportionate number of

potential jurors were white. The court noted that only two of thirteen

tentative jurors were black. The court found that the defense had made a

prima facie case in accord with Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 125 S. Ct.
5

2317, 162 L. Ed. 2d 196 (2005). However, the court ultimately denied the

Batson challenge as it found that the state had asserted race-neutral reasons

for the peremptory strikes.

CONCLUSION

We agree with appellate counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues

concerning Ealy’s conviction and sentence. For the foregoing reasons, we

affirm his conviction and sentence, and grant the motion to withdraw as

counsel of record.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD GRANTED.

6