State of Louisiana v. Quinessiah T. Sanders

Judgment rendered February 26, 2025.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,072-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

QUINESSIAH T. SANDERS Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
Sixth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Madison, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 213,880

Honorable Angela Lynn Claxton, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Doulgas Lee Harville

JAMES EDWARD PAXTON Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

KENNETH ANDERSON BRISTER
ANITA TENNANT MACK
EDWIN MOBERLEY
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before COX, THOMPSON, and HUNTER, JJ.

COX, J.

This criminal appeal arises from the Sixth Judicial District Court,

Madison Parish, Louisiana, the Honorable Angela L. Claxton presiding. The

trial court found Quinessiah T. Sanders guilty of second degree murder and

sentenced her to life imprisonment at hard labor. For the following reasons,

we affirm Sanders’ conviction and sentence.

FACTS

Sanders was indicted by Bill of Indictment in East Carroll Parish for

the following:

1) second degree murder of Cheryl L. Lewis (“Cheryl”);

2) attempted second degree murder of Tasha Lashay Lewis (“Tasha”);
and

3) attempted second degree murder of Samuel Lee Phillips.

The State dismissed count three, attempted second degree murder of

Samuel Lee Phillips. The case was relocated to Madison Parish after a jury

was not impaneled, resulting in a mistrial. On the morning the jury was to

be selected in Madison Parish, the State agreed to sever the remaining two

charges, and Sanders motioned for a bench trial on count one, the second

degree murder of Cheryl. The following evidence was adduced on April 25,

2023:

Louisiana State Tropper Kaleb Reeves testified that he was dispatched

to investigate a shooting on March 23, 2019. Trooper Reeves testified

regarding the evidence collected at the scene of the crime. He stated that

based on the evidence collected and speaking with witnesses, they made the

decision to arrest Sanders for the murder of Cheryl.

Lieutenant Melvin D. Gibson, East Carroll Parish Sheriff’s Office,

was dispatched on March 23, 2019, to Uncle Darrell’s Convenience Store

(“Uncle Darrell’s”) and the Blackberry Lounge (“the Blackberry”). He

stated that when he arrived, he found Cheryl on the ground in the parking lot

of the Blackberry, and she was not responsive.

Deputy Mark Taylor of the Lincoln Parish Sheriff’s Department

testified that at the time of the shooting, he was an investigator with the

Louisiana State Police. Deputy Taylor stated that he was dispatched to

investigate the homicide and photographed the scene upon arrival. Sixty-

eight crime-scene photos were introduced into evidence.

Netika Newman testified that she was acquainted with both Cheryl

and Sanders and was present during the shooting. She testified as to what

she saw and heard the night of the shooting. Ms. Newman was talking with

Cheryl’s sister, Tasha, when they heard Sanders and her sister, Roshonda

Sanders (“Roshonda”), arguing with Bryant Wingate (“Wingate”), Tasha’s

boyfriend. Wingate was upset that something was “wasted” on his shirt; one

of the Sanders sisters apologized, but Wingate continued to yell. Sanders’

brother, Roosevelt Sanders (“Roosevelt”), asked Wingate to stop yelling out

his sister’s name, but Wingate did not stop, and a fight broke out between

the Sanders family and Wingate. Tasha walked over to the fight, became

involved in the altercation, and sprayed everyone with mace. The altercation

eventually ended after other people stepped in to stop it.

Ms. Newman stated that after she drove some people home who were

sprayed with mace, Tasha approached her looking for the Sanders and

Roshonda. Sanders and Roshonda pulled up in a car, and Cheryl was

standing with Tasha. Tasha and Roshonda began fighting. Sanders
2

intervened in the fight by hitting Tasha with a bottle. When Sanders

intervened, Cheryl grabbed Sanders by her hair and pulled her away. After

this second fight was broken up, Ms. Newman did not see Sanders again.

After the fight, Cheryl and Tasha were dancing in the middle of the

road, and Ms. Newman was with them. Within five to ten minutes of

dancing, someone yelled “she shooting,” and Ms. Newman and Cheryl ran

beside a vehicle parked at the Blackberry. Ms. Newman did not recall Tasha

running in the same direction as them. While Ms. Newman, Cheryl, and

others were hiding beside the car, Alvin Lewis (“Alvin”) came out of the

Blackberry and began shooting from behind the same car. Ms. Newman

stated that Alvin was not looking where he was shooting. She did not see

any other shooters, although she heard a lot of gunfire. Ms. Newman saw

Cheryl fall after Cheryl stated she was hit. On cross-examination, Ms.

Newman stated that Cheryl did not fall until after Alvin came out of the club

and began shooting.

Tiffany Gibson testified that she witnessed the fight between Tasha

and Roshonda. Ms. Gibson’s testimony regarding the fight aligned with Ms.

Newman’s testimony, but their testimonies differed when recalling the

events after the fight. Ms. Gibson stated that while they were dancing in the

road, she saw Sanders walk toward them shooting what looked and sounded

like a black 9 mm handgun. Ms. Gibson testified that she, Cheryl, and

Tasha all ran together. As they were running, Cheryl yelled, “Tiff, I’m hit,

and it’s hot” before falling to the ground. Ms. Gibson stated that Cheryl was

shot from behind, from the direction of the road, and fell forward. On cross-

examination, Ms. Gibson stated that she did not hear any other gunshots,

only the shots from Sanders.
3

Antranika Shelton testified that she was at the Blackberry the night of

the shooting, and Cheryl was her cousin. She stated that inside the

Blackberry, Wingate bumped into one of Sanders’ relatives, which sent them

into a verbal altercation that ended when she (the relative) threw a drink at

Wingate. Roshonda, Sanders, Roosevelt, and the relative began fighting

with Wingate. The fight ended at the entrance of the Blackberry.

Ms. Shelton stated that once Tasha found out about the fight with her

boyfriend, another altercation ensued with the Sanders family. She stated

that about twenty minutes later, Tasha saw Roshonda walking down the

street and wanted to fight her one-on-one. During the one-on-one fight,

Tasha was getting the best of Roshonda, so Sanders stepped in and hit Tasha

with a beer bottle. Then, Cheryl hit Sanders and grabbed her by the hair.

Sanders’ brothers broke up the fights, and the Sanders family walked in the

direction of Uncle Darrell’s.

Ms. Shelton stated that when she looked toward the store, she saw

Sanders aiming a weapon at Cheryl and Tasha, but she was not certain if

Sanders or someone else fired shots first. Ms. Shelton ducked behind her

vehicle and stayed there until the shots ceased. After the gunfire ceased, she

heard people yelling that Cheryl was shot.

Wingate testified that while at the Blackberry, Sanders threw a cup of

alcohol at him. She told him it was an accident, and he wanted her to

apologize. When she did not apologize, one of Sanders’ brothers hit

Wingate in the eye, and other members of the Sanders family jumped into

the fight. He stated that Tasha was with him and began screaming at them to

stop, but they jumped on her as well. The fight ended when Tasha sprayed

mace.
4

Wingate testified that he knew Tasha and Roshonda fought, but he did

not walk over to the fight; he stayed by his truck. He stated that he saw

Sanders’ brother talking to his (Wingate’s) father at the convenience store

before handing Sanders a gun. Sanders began walking in the direction of the

Blackberry and fired shots. Wingate stated that he fired shots in Sanders’

direction and heard a third shooter.

Michelle Jackson testified that she is the DNA Supervisor for the

North Louisiana Crime Lab. Ms. Jackson was accepted as a forensic expert.

She stated that she was provided with a DNA sample for testing regarding

the shooting outside the Blackberry. Ms. Jackson’s report was submitted as

evidence. The blood sample Ms. Jackson tested was consistent with

Cheryl’s DNA.

Dr. Christopher Tape was accepted as an expert in forensic pathology

and performed the autopsy of Cheryl. He testified that he found a bullet at

the bottom of Cheryl’s right rib cage. He stated that the bullet entered right

above Cheryl’s left posterior hip. He testified that nothing would have

prevented Cheryl from continuing to move forward after she was shot. Dr.

Tape stated the trajectory of the bullet could be consistent with someone

who was bent over and shot from behind.

Kendall Stracener testified that at the time of the shooting, he worked

for the North Louisiana Crime Lab as Director and a firearms examiner. He

was accepted as an expert in the field of firearms examination. He examined

ten 9 mm cartridge cases from the scene and determined that six were fired

from one weapon and four were fired from another weapon. Mr. Stracener

testified that he examined the bullet recovered in the autopsy and determined

it was a 9 mm.
5

Roosevelt testified that he is Sanders’ older brother. Roosevelt stated

that on the night of the shooting, his sister spilled a drink on Wingate’s shirt,

Wingate was upset, and Wingate called his sister names. He stated that he

offered to buy Wingate a new shirt and asked him to stop disrespecting his

sister, but Wingate continued the name-calling. Roosevelt testified that he

and Wingate got into an altercation, and then his sisters and Tasha joined the

fight; the fight ended when Tasha sprayed his sister with mace.

Roosevelt stated that after the fight ended, he went to the hospital to

check on his sister, who was sprayed with mace, and he attempted to locate

all his family members because gun threats were made by the other side after

the fight. When he returned to the Blackberry, he saw Sanders standing

across the street at Uncle Darrell’s. Roosevelt could not recall where

Sanders got a gun or who started shooting first. He testified that he tried to

get the gun from Sanders but was unsuccessful and took cover. Roosevelt

stated that he left the scene when the gunshots ceased.

Albert Paxton testified that he previously worked for the Louisiana

State Police and assisted in taking statements after the shooting. Trooper

Paxton stated that he interviewed Sanders, and Sanders stated that she was

shooting that night.

Tyrone Taylor testified that he is Wingate’s father. He stated that he

arrived at Uncle Darrell’s Convenience store after being informed that his

son was in a fight. He approached Roosevelt to discuss the fight with his

son, and Roosevelt flashed a gun from under his shirt. He stated that while

they were talking, Sanders ran up and asked Roosevelt for the gun;

Roosevelt told her she did not need the gun, they scuffled over the gun

before Sanders got it, and she said, “I’m fixing to kill me a mother.” Then
6

Sanders began shooting toward the Blackberry. After the shooting, Mr.

Taylor saw Sanders leave with her little brother, Ra-Ra. Mr. Taylor testified

that he was told his son had a gun at the scene, so he took it because he did

not want his son to get in any trouble.

Tasha testified that Roshonda dumped a drink on Wingate as soon as

they arrived at the Blackberry. Roshonda and Wingate exchanged words,

Roosevelt intervened, and Roosevelt punched Wingate. Tasha stated that

while pleading for someone to help Wingate, Roshonda, Sanders, and

another girl attacked her. While the three ladies attacked her, Tasha pulled

out mace and sprayed them. After the altercation, they all went their

separate ways. Tasha stated that after about thirty minutes, Roshonda and

Sanders came walking from across the street; Roshonda had a bat and

Sanders had a bottle. Tasha stated that the Sanders sisters approached her

and her sister in a “rage.” The Sanders sisters wanted to fight, and Tasha

agreed to fight one-on-one.

Tasha stated that during her one-on-one fight with Roshonda, Sanders

hit her on the back of the head with a bottle. At that point, Cheryl grabbed

Sanders and pulled her away. Tasha testified that when she and Roshonda

were pulled apart, Roshonda stated that Tasha won the fight and walked

toward a vehicle in the Blackberry parking lot; Sanders ran to Uncle

Darrell’s. After the fight, Tasha and Cheryl were dancing in the street.

About fifteen minutes after the fight, while Tasha and Cheryl were still

dancing in the street, Tasha saw Sanders approaching them with a gun;

Sanders pointed the gun at them and fired multiple shots. Tasha testified

that she grabbed Cheryl and told her to run. Tasha was shot in the right leg,

7

which was the leg facing Sanders, and Cheryl was shot in the left hip, which

was also facing Sanders.

Tasha testified they did not realize Cheryl was shot until after they ran

behind a vehicle, and she fell. Her cousin, Alvin, began shooting after

Cheryl was shot, and Wingate was the third person to shoot. The State

rested at the conclusion of Tasha’s testimony.

The Defense called Derrick Sanders (“Derrick”), Sanders’ brother, to

testify. Derrick stated that he was at the Blackberry the night of the shooting

to celebrate his nephew’s homegoing. Derrick was not involved in the

altercation but later learned about it. As he was leaving the Blackberry,

Derrick saw Wingate holding a gun.

The Defense called Roosevelt to testify again. He stated that Sanders

was the only one he saw shooting, but he heard other gunshots. Roosevelt

testified that he saw Wingate with a gun before Sanders started shooting.

On cross-examination, the State questioned why Roosevelt did not state

earlier that he saw Wingate with a gun. He responded that he could not

remember everything he said, and the event happened four years ago so it

takes time to remember. The Defense rested after Roosevelt’s testimony.

After closing arguments, the trial court found Sanders guilty as

charged of the second degree murder of Cheryl. The trial court detailed the

evidence that led to its decision, including a finding that Sanders had

sufficient time for her blood to cool. The trial court ordered a presentence

investigation report.

Sanders filed a motion for new trial and asserted that Alvin Lewis was

not properly investigated, and new evidence suggests that his gunfire struck

Cheryl. On June 21, 2023, a hearing was held on Sanders’ motion. The trial
8

court denied the motion on the basis that Ms. Newman’s testimony

regarding Alvin’s shots was not new evidence. After denying the motion,

the trial court immediately proceeded with sentencing Sanders to life

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

suspension of sentence. Sanders now appeals.

DISCUSSION

Sanders’ sole assignment of error is that there was insufficient

evidence to prove she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of killing

Cheryl. She highlights the following facts: Cheryl was killed by a gunshot

fired from behind her; Sanders was in front of Cheryl; and Cheryl’s cousin,

Alvin, was firing a 9 mm handgun from behind or beside Cheryl when she

was struck. She argues that because it is impossible to determine who shot

Cheryl, the State’s evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

she is guilty of killing Cheryl. She requests that this Court reverse her

conviction, vacate her sentence, and enter a judgment of acquittal.

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence

claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1979);

State v. Tate, 01-1658 (La. 5/20/03), 851 So. 2d 921, cert. denied, 541 U.S.

905, 124 S. Ct. 1604, 158 L.Ed. 2d 248 (2004); State v. Steines, 51,698 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 11/15/17), 245 So. 3d 224, writ denied, 17-2174 (La. 10/8/18),

253 So. 3d 797. This standard, now codified in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does

not afford appellate courts with a means to substitute its own appreciation of

the evidence for that of the fact finder. Steines, supra.
9

The Jackson standard is applicable to cases involving both direct and

circumstantial evidence. An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of the

evidence in such cases must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by

viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When

the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct

evidence must be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a

reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of

the crime. State v. Sutton, 436 So. 2d 471 (La. 1983).

Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and

circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred

according to reason and common experience. State v. Broome, 49,004 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 4/9/14), 136 So. 3d 979, writ denied, 14-0990 (La. 1/16/15), 157

So. 3d 1127. If a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that

evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S.

15:438; Broome, supra; State v. Gipson, 45,121 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/14/10),

34 So. 3d 1090, writ denied, 10-1019 (La. 11/24/10), 50 So. 3d 827.

Appellate courts neither assess the credibility of witnesses nor

reweigh evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d 442.

A reviewing court affords great deference to the trier of fact’s decision to

accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part. State v.

Jackson, 53,497 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/20), 296 So. 3d 1156. Where there is

conflicting testimony concerning factual matters, the resolution of which

depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, the matter

is one of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. State v. Allen,

36,180 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/18/02), 828 So. 2d 622, writ denied, 02-2595 (La.

6/27/03), 847 So. 2d 1255.
10

In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with

physical evidence, one witness’s testimony, if believed by the trier of fact, is

sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion. State v. Elkins, 48,972

(La. App. 2 Cir. 4/9/14), 138 So. 3d 769, writ denied, 14-0992 (La. 12/8/14),

153 So. 3d 438; State v. Wiltcher, 41,981 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/9/07), 956 So.

2d 769.

Sanders was convicted of second degree murder in violation of La.

R.S. 14:30.1. Second degree murder is the killing of a human being when

the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. La.

R.S. 14:30.1(A)(1).

In this case, the trial court heard conflicting testimony regarding

where Cheryl was positioned when she was shot. Ms. Newman stated

Cheryl was beside the vehicle when she was shot, which was after Alvin

began shooting from behind the vehicle. Ms. Gibson testified that she and

Tasha were with Cheryl when she was shot. Ms. Gibson stated that Sanders

walked toward them and fired shots, they ran together, and Cheryl was hit

from behind. Tasha testified that Sanders aimed and shot toward her and

Cheryl, she told Cheryl to run, and they were both hit from the direction

Sanders was shooting. Tasha testified that Cheryl did not realize she was

shot until after she hid behind a vehicle.

Based on this testimony, and that of the other witnesses at trial, we

find that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of

second degree murder proven beyond a reasonable doubt. All three ladies

testified that they saw Sanders point the gun toward Cheryl and shoot at her.

Ms. Gibson and Tasha both stated they were with Cheryl when she was shot

from behind. Tasha stated that Cheryl did not realize she was shot until after
11

she hid behind the vehicle and fell. Ms. Newman also recalled Cheryl

falling behind the vehicle, but she did not recall Tasha running with them.

Although Ms. Newman recalled Cheryl getting shot after Alvin came out of

the Blackberry shooting, Tasha and Cheryl testified that she was shot from

behind while running away. Tasha was also shot in the leg that was facing

Sanders while she was shooting.

The trial court weighed the eyewitnesses’ testimony and rejected the

portion of Ms. Newman’s testimony that Cheryl was shot after hiding behind

the vehicle. The trial court accepted the timeline of Ms. Gibson and Tasha

that Cheryl was shot while running away from Sanders. We will not disturb

the trial court’s witness credibility determination. Ms. Gibson’s and Tasha’s

testimonies also align with Dr. Tape’s testimony that the bullet entered

above Cheryl’s left posterior hip, which could be consistent with someone

who was bent over and shot from behind.

Based on the evidence presented at trial, a rational trier of fact could

have found that Sanders acted with a specific intent to kill or inflict great

bodily harm in firing her gun toward Cheryl and Tasha. We affirm the trial

court’s finding that Sanders is guilty of the second degree murder of Cheryl.

ERROR PATENT

Our review of this record reveals that the trial court did not comply

with the obligatory delay before sentencing Sanders. La. C. Cr. P. art. 873

provides, “If a defendant is convicted of a felony, at least three days shall

elapse between conviction and sentence. If a motion for a new trial, or in

arrest of judgment, is filed, sentence shall not be imposed until at least

twenty-four hours after the motion is overruled.” Sanders was sentenced

immediately after her motion for a new trial was denied. Nevertheless, we
12

conclude that any error was harmless in this instance because Sanders did

not object to the trial court’s failure to observe the sentencing delay, and she

suffered no prejudice as she faced a mandatory sentence of life

imprisonment.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Sanders’ conviction and sentence are

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

13