State of Louisiana v. Martin Dwayne Bailey, Jr.

Judgment rendered December 17, 2025.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,624-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

MARTIN DWAYNE BAILEY, JR. Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 399,888

Honorable Donald E. Hathaway, Jr., Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Holli Herrle-Castillo

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

MARGARET E. RICHIE GASKINS
STEPHEN FOLK-CRUTHIRDS
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before COX, STEPHENS, and MARCOTTE, JJ.

MARCOTTE, J.

This criminal appeal arises from the First Judicial District Court,

Parish of Caddo, the Honorable Donald E. Hathaway, Jr. presiding.

Defendant Martin Dwayne Bailey, Jr. (“Bailey”) appeals his conviction for

stalking a person in violation of a civil protective order and sentence of 18

months at hard labor. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant’s

conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Bailey was charged by amended bill of information with stalking a

person in violation of a civil protective order, under La. R.S. 14:40.2(B)(3).

The victim was Tanya Jones (“Jones”), and the offense occurred on or about

January 17, 2024. Bailey pled not guilty. A trial was held January 13 and

14, 2025, where the following evidence was adduced.

Jones testified that she had been married to Bailey for 13 years and

they had a daughter together. Jones and Bailey separated, and, through their

divorce proceedings, the court issued a civil protective order. The order,

signed by the court on November 15, 2023, prohibited the parties from

“physically abusing, sexually harassing, stalking, and/or threatening each

other in any manner whatsoever.” The prohibition included the “use,

attempted use, or threatened use of force, physical violence that would

reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury, and from contacting the other

party, personally, electronically, by phone, texting, in writing, through social

media, or through a third party, or to go to either [the] residence or place of

employment of the other.” Bailey and Jones were ordered to enroll in and

use Our Family Wizard (“OFW”) to communicate with each other about

their child.

Jones testified that after the civil protective order was issued, Bailey

texted her every day, 20 to 70 times a day. Some of the text messages were

about their daughter, but many were not. Several of the messages were

threatening. She said he texted her from different phone numbers and not

through OFW. Jones said that she had custody of their daughter at the time,

and Baily had supervised visitation with her for two hours per week. The

visits were supposed to be supervised by Jones’ mother, sister, or father, and

Bailey was expected to schedule the visits through OFW.

Jones stated that on January 16, 2024, Bailey continued to send her

text messages throughout the day. Jones had moved to a new home in a

trailer park on Dixie Blanchard Road, and Bailey told her that he was going

to come to her home and see their daughter. Jones told him he was not

allowed to do that. Bailey continued to send her text messages throughout

that day and the next day. Jones said the messages were very threatening

and harassing toward her and Dylan Richmond (“Dylan”), the person Bailey

believed to be Jones’ boyfriend. Jones said that Dylan was the person who

was performing work on her home. The text messages were admitted. Jones

read the following text message exchange:1

Jones: You are not allowed at my house.

Bailey: Watch me I will be there

Bailey: As long as you are the mother of my child you will
not refuse me

Bailey: I will show up with the law if I have to I will be at
your house

1
All text messages are reproduced verbatim, including the censored words.
2

Bailey: I will see my daughter with the police

Jones said that, at that time, Bailey had not scheduled visitation with

his daughter. Jones read following texts:

Bailey: I’m not trying to fight with you

Bailey: I’m tired of these games

Bailey: I’m tired of these games you do not control me

Bailey: I pity that little fool that he’s f****** with fat
w**** anyway

Jones: I will meet with you but this is my home and you
are not allowed

Bailey: Yes I will bet you bet I don’t knock on your
mother f***** door

Bailey: I was going to wait till morning because it was
going to be too late but now I am not waiting

Bailey: You will not refuse me the rights to see my
daughter Where She lays nor the house that you
have her in I will get to see both

Jones: No you don’t

Bailey: So tell your little boyfriend he might not want to
be there cuz if he’s there I swear to God that I will
drag him out and beat the f*** out

Jones: I don’t have a boyfriend

Bailey: I have a right to know if she’s safe and I do not
know if she’s safe or the place that’s around or
who’s there with her so yes I do and the police will
back it they will go in and check for me cuz if he’s
there it’s

Bailey: You been hiding him the whole time don’t lie

Jones testified that in Bailey’s repeated references to her “boyfriend,”

he meant Dylan. Jones said at that time, their daughter was with her and

completely safe. She read more text messages:

3

Bailey: That’s one of your mini lies you’re been telling me
over and over

Jones: Call the police to come with you because your not
welcome…

Bailey: Enough about this I’m done talking I told you I’ll
be there. End of discussion

Bailey: Don’t worry they [the police] will be with me

Bailey: Just as in I will remove her from that home if I
choose

Jones: No you won’t LOL

Bailey: Might not be tonight might not be tomorrow but
one day you will not keep my daughter for me like
you’re

Bailey: You will not keep my daughter for me like you’re
doing

Bailey: Over My Dead Body

Jones: I’m not keeping her from you. Your acting
crazy…

Bailey: You just don’t want me to see his stuff there at
your house

Bailey: Because you’re telling me I’m not welcome where
my daughter is that’s what got me crazy this time
and you know it you know by refusing me the right
to see where my daughter lays you would be
pissing … me off

Jones said that Bailey was texting her “minute by minute,” and “It just

didn’t stop.” She testified that Bailey went from fighting about Dylan to

asking about their daughter. She read the following messages:

Bailey: Stop trying to make me mad clear your boyfriend
stuff up so I don’t see it and welcome me in to see
the house and then what she’s done and what
you’ve done and that she’s safe and then I can ease
my way back out
….

4

Bailey: Make sure your cameras on I want to I want them
to see me drag that little m*********** out

Bailey: You do have your cameras up and running right

Jones affirmed that Dylan had not threatened Bailey and that there

was not anything going on between the two men. She read on:

Bailey: I hope you do because then that’s really not safe

Bailey: Maybe if you stop trying to control me and then
acting like you’re hiding something I wouldn’t
care
….

Bailey: Using our daughter to control me in my actions is
really childish

Bailey: Your boyfriend must be whispering in your ear
that

Bailey: You know the good thing is is that road is Public
Road so I could drive right in front of your house
an stop and you would have to bring the child out
to me and that’s it right there I don’t have to go in
your house I know that’s what you’re trying to
hide but you can’t stop me from driving by your

Bailey: And if I’m not welcome at your house then she’s
not welcome at your house neither is he

Bailey: That’s going to go over real good with court I’m
not allowed at my daughter’s house because … her
mom’s boyfriend

Jones: Your insane

Bailey: No I’m not I’m just telling you the law I do have
the right to know my daughter safe just saying I’m
supposed to believe you okay but you also can’t
stop me from doing anything you have no pool I’m
not on your property it’s not even your property
you rent it you rent the the land the lease on the
land

Bailey: But I’m not even trying to start trouble I’m just
trying to see my kid you’re the one hiding
something

5

Bailey: That’s all right I’ll see his car one day parked in
front of your house and I’ll know

Bailey: It might not be today might not be tomorrow
might be a year from now but mark my words he’s
got it coming

Jones: Get a life Martin I will not do this with you

Bailey: You’re not alone it took two to make her too stop
being a single mom you can be a single mom or
you’re no single I mean you could be a co-parent
that’s what you … are

Bailey: Start acting like it

Bailey: Decisions and co-parents are made together not

Bailey: Outside my piece I’m done

Bailey: Not outside I said … my piece and I’m done

Bailey: You know I could have literally go all week and
not be made at your and your instantly find a way
to piss me off

Bailey: I’ll be he’s there right now saying oh he can’t do
nothing … f*** him

Bailey: And you’re just as much of a coward as he is hide
behind that

Bailey: Not letting the Man fight his battles that he started

Bailey There you go let [our daughter] and see her dad get
hauled off to jail because the f****** mom tried to
do it again and lied to the police

Bailey: Talk text not [our daughter]

Jones: I never lied and you know it

Bailey: Yes you did said I choke you that’s what the cop
said the cop said I beat you up and choke you

Bailey: And you know I did not

Jones: Yes you did

Bailey: I have never put my hands on

6

Bailey: You’re a damn liar

Jones: You lie like the dog you are

Bailey: See that’s what you say when someone lies but
when that your boyfriend was telling me that he
f***** you and that that you were his girl you
didn’t say you’re a damn

Jones affirmed that Bailey and Dylan did not talk or have a

relationship. She continued to read Bailey’s text messages to her:

Bailey: You were his girl you didn’t say you’re a damn liar
to him

Bailey: Because he wasn’t lying he was telling me the
truth of what you told him

Bailey: So I really hope he’s there

Bailey: I pray that I see him

Bailey: Lord give me the strength give me the strength to
keep my cool and deal with this lying piece of
trash and whoop her

Bailey: And whoop her boyfriend’s ass

Bailey: Amen…

Bailey: Would you like to know the difference of me from
right now than 16 years ago when you went over
your brother’s house and beat up on that girl you
want another differences

Jones: If you put one hand on me you will be going to jail
Martin I promise you that

Jones said that she was very scared due to Bailey’s text messages.

She said they kept “going back and forth, and it just wouldn’t stop.” She

read:

Bailey: I’ve been married to you for 16 years and watch
you lie to me for 16 years there’s a difference

Bailey: I’m not talking about you

Bailey: Unless you step in between him and me
7

Bailey: If you step between him and me I promise you I
will treat you like him

Bailey: And why would I put a hand on you

Bailey: Did you not read the messages

Jones: Because you said it

Bailey: Never once have I actually said I was going to hit
you or beat your ass now I’ll have some girl do
that I don’t need to

Jones testified that she took that to mean Bailey would have a third

person beat her up. She continued to read the following text messages:

Bailey: No I’m talk texting and I’m not reading the
messages I’m sorry if I said that I was talking
about your boyfriend not you

Jones: I don’t have a boyfriend

Bailey: Dylan I’m talking about dealing if he’s there or it’s
staying there or moves in I’m f****** him up then
you will be dealt with right then

Bailey: I do when it’s him and I promise you I will drag
his dead corpse right out of your house

Bailey: He better not be there

Bailey: Is the cops are going to have to shoot me to get me
off of don’t worry I’m bringing them with me

Jones: OK

Bailey: You really testing the wrong Waters with me
woman I told you he’s better not be around my
child

Bailey: And if he’s around my child all hell’s broke loose

Bailey: Is he there or not

Bailey: That’s what I though you’re f****** coward too

The text messages that were read in court started around 6:50 p.m. and

ended around 7:15 p.m. on January 16, 2023. A photograph that Jones took
8

was admitted. She testified that it depicted an Apple AirTag tracking device

that was on her car. Jones called the police about the device. She said she

found it on or around November 26, 2023; it was attached to the frame of

her car. Jones said that Bailey was constantly messaging and badgering her

and that he would not leave her alone.

Jones testified that around 4:00 a.m. on January 17, 2023, she saw

Bailey’s 18-wheeler parked on the road to her house, located at 8059 Dixie

Blanchard Road. She testified that the road to her home terminated at her

home, and that there was no outlet. She said Bailey was there with a girl.

Jones said that there was no reason for anyone to be in her private drive at

4:00 a.m. She called the police. She showed the police the text messages,

and they saw Bailey. They issued him a summons and told him to stay away

from her home.

Jones stated that she did not receive any text messages from Bailey

while he was parked in her drive. She said she moved to her new home a

few weeks before the incident. She affirmed that her address at the time the

protective order was issued was 8310 Dixie Blanchard Road, the home she

shared with Bailey. She said that Bailey moved out of that home when they

separated.

Deputy Aaron Normand (“Dep. Normand”), who was employed by

the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office, testified that he was called to Jones’

residence on January 17, 2023. He said that the roads were covered in snow

and ice, and he arrived there around 6:00 a.m. He noticed Bailey’s 18-

wheeler parked 3-4 houses down (approximately 100 yards) from Jones’

residence. Dep. Normand spoke first with Bailey, who said he had pulled

into an empty lot and got stuck due to the bad roads. When the deputy
9

arrived, Bailey was attempting to drive his 18-wheeler back and forth to get

it out of the frozen mud in which it was stuck.

Dep. Normand spoke with Jones, who explained her relationship with

Bailey and showed the deputy his text messages to her from the previous 24

hours. Dep. Normand said that the road Jones lived on was very narrow,

with little room for two cars to pass each other. Dep. Normand spoke with

Bailey again and then issued him a summons for stalking. Dep. Normand

stayed until Bailey’s vehicle was removed, around 10:00 a.m., to ensure

there was no contact between the two. Dep. Normand affirmed that there

was a female passenger in Bailey’s 18-wheeler. The state rested.

Breanne Sullivan (“Sullivan”) testified for the defense. She described

herself as Bailey’s best friend and said that he was a hard worker who

wanted to see his child, and she had never known him to threaten anyone.

Leroy Dean Mize (“Mize”), Bailey’s brother, testified that he asked

Bailey to pick up his niece from the same trailer park where Jones lived.

Bailey contacted Mize to help pull his rig out from where it was stuck. Mize

said that, while he was at the trailer park, he did not see anyone in his group

approach or speak with Jones. Mize said he knew Jones throughout her

marriage to Bailey, and he had never known Bailey to threaten Jones. Mize

testified that Jones was angry with Bailey and that he thought the couple had

“issues.” Mize said he did not know that Jones lived in the trailer park and

was unaware of their ongoing divorce proceedings.

Bailey elected not to testify in his own defense, and the defense

rested. The six-member jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. The

jury was polled, and the verdict was unanimous.

10

Bailey filed a motion for a new trial and a motion for a post-verdict

judgment of acquittal. The motions were denied; the defense objected. On

February 3, 2025, Bailey came before the court for sentencing. The trial

court said that Bailey was born in 1979, and he affirmed that he had some

college education and was employed as a truck driver. The court noted that

he had been married to Jones for more than 10 years and they had one

daughter together. The court said Bailey had felony drug offenses from

2006 and 2014. The court considered the factors found in La. C. Cr. P. art.

894.1 and sentenced Bailey to 18 months at hard labor with credit for time

served. The court waived a fine or costs and informed Bailey of his

appellate and post-conviction relief time delays. The court issued a

permanent protective order in favor of Jones. The court said any matters

regarding custody or visitation were to be handled through family court.

Bailey now appeals.

DISCUSSION

In Bailey’s single assignment of error, he contends that there was

insufficient evidence upon which to base his conviction. He claims that

stalking requires the specific intent to inflict a continuity of emotional

distress upon the victim by a series of acts. He argues that his goal in texting

Jones was to ensure that their child was safe and not to scare his wife. He

contends that the purpose of his threats to Dylan was also not to alarm his

estranged spouse but to prevent Dylan from seeing his child. He states that

the only evidence presented was the text messages between himself and

Jones that were exchanged 12 to 24 hours prior to her calling law

enforcement.

11

He argues that the state provided no link between him and the Apple

AirTag found on Jones’ car. He also states that Jones testified that he

contacted her multiple times a day prior to the date of the offense, but those

texts were not admitted. Bailey points out that in his text exchange with

Jones he said that he had never harmed her and would never do so but that

he would have a girl do that. He also said in his texts that he was using the

talk to text feature on his phone and not reading the messages before sending

them.

Bailey also argues that the state failed to present sufficient evidence

that his text messages caused Jones to feel alarm or emotional distress. He

points out that Jones responded to his texts, and her responses were not

indicative of a person who was alarmed or distressed. Bailey says that Jones

texting “LOL” and “Get a Life,” shows that she was not alarmed by his

texts.

He argues that if Jones felt alarm or emotional distress, it was only

when she saw him in his truck on her street. Bailey contends that he had to

know where she lived for his presence there to be intentional harassment,

and he had to know that Jones would look out her window at 4:00 a.m. when

he drove on her street. He argues that there was no evidence presented that

showed he was aware of Jones’ new address. He contends that he was in the

area to pick up his niece on behalf of his brother. He argues that driving by

Jones’ house a single time does not constitute stalking because that crime

requires recurring or renewed behavior. He asks that his conviction and

sentence be vacated.

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence

claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
12

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

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

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 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. Cartwright, 52,056 (La. App.

2 Cir. 8/15/18) 252 So. 3d 1045, writ denied, 18-1531 (La. 4/22/19), 268 So.

3d 302. This standard, legislatively embodied in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does

not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own

appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder. State v. Pigford, 05-

0477 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So. 2d 517; State v. Cartwright, supra.

The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or

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

A reviewing court accords great deference to a jury’s decision to accept or

reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part. State v. Eason, 43,788

(La. App. 2 Cir. 2/25/09), 3 So. 3d 685, writ denied, 09-0725 (La. 12/11/09),

23 So. 3d 913, cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1013, 130 S. Ct. 3472, 177 L. Ed. 2d

1068 (2010).

The Jackson standard is applicable in cases involving both direct and

circumstantial evidence. An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of

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 so viewed, the facts established by the direct evidence

and inferred from the circumstances established by that 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); State v. Cartwright, supra.
13

Louisiana Revised Statute 14:40.2 provides:

(A) Stalking is the intentional and repeated following or
harassing of another person that would cause a reasonable
person to feel alarmed or to suffer emotional distress. Stalking
shall include but not be limited to the intentional and repeated
uninvited presence of the perpetrator at another person’s home,
workplace, school, or any place which would cause a
reasonable person to be alarmed, or to suffer emotional distress
as a result of verbal, written, or behaviorally implied threats of
death, bodily injury, sexual assault, kidnapping, or any other
statutory criminal act to himself or any member of his family or
any person with whom he is acquainted.
….

(B)(3) (3) Any person who commits the offense of stalking against a
person for whose benefit a protective order, a temporary restraining
order, or any lawful order prohibiting contact with the victim issued
by a judge or magistrate is in effect in either a civil or criminal
proceeding, protecting the victim of the stalking from acts by the
offender which otherwise constitute the crime of stalking, shall be
punished by imprisonment with or without hard labor for not less than
ninety days and not more than two years or fined not more than five
thousand dollars, or both.
….

(C)(1) “Harassing” means the repeated pattern of verbal
communications or nonverbal behavior without invitation which
includes but is not limited to making telephone calls, transmitting
electronic mail, sending messages via a third party, or sending letters
or pictures.

(2) “Pattern of conduct” means a series of acts over a period of time,
however short, evidencing an intent to inflict a continuity of
emotional distress upon the person. Constitutionally protected activity
is not included within the meaning of pattern of conduct.

Stalking is a general intent crime that requires only that defendant

have the general intent to repeatedly follow or harass the victim in a manner

that would cause a reasonable person to feel alarmed or to suffer emotional

distress. See State v. Terrio, 19-90 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/20/19), 2019 WL

1285288, writ denied, 19-0491 (La. 4/10/19), 267 So. 3d 617. Here, the

state had to prove that Bailey repeatedly and intentionally followed or

14

harassed Jones in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to feel

alarmed or to suffer emotional distress. To obtain the sentencing

enhancement provided in La. R.S. 14:40.2(B)(3), the state was also required

to prove that Jones had a protective order guarding her from acts by Bailey

which would otherwise comprise the crime of stalking.

The state proved that there was a civil protective order issued as a part

of Jones and Bailey’s divorce proceedings. That order prohibited defendant

and Jones from “physically abusing, sexually abusing, harassing, stalking,

and/or threatening each other in any manner.” The protective order also

prohibited the two from contacting each other “personally, electronically, by

phone, texting, in writing, through social media, or through a third party.”

In addition, they were prohibited from going to each other’s residences and

places of employment. They were ordered to communicate through OFW to

schedule Bailey’s supervised visitation with their child. Jones testified that

Bailey never used the app or set up visitation.

Rather, Bailey, for a period of approximately two months between

November 2023 and January 2024, sent dozens of daily text messages to

Jones, many of which were threatening. Bailey’s argument that the state did

not prove his behavior was repeated is unfounded. Jones testified to the

two-month duration of the text messages, and the jury was tasked with

determining her credibility as a witness. Furthermore, La. R.S.

14:40.2(C)(2) provides that the pattern of conduct constituting stalking

means a series of acts over a period “however short, evidencing an intent to

inflict a continuity of emotional distress upon the person.”

15

That the state introduced screen shots of Bailey’s January 16, 2024,

texts is sufficient to show that Bailey’s behavior was repeated, as was her

testimony about other text messages defendant sent to her. The number and

nature of the text messages also support the state’s assertion that Bailey’s

conduct was repeated. The repetitive text messages were harassing within

the meaning of that term as defined in La. R.S. 14:40.2. “Harassing means

the repeated pattern of verbal communications or nonverbal behavior

without invitation which includes but is not limited to making telephone

calls, transmitting electronic mail, sending messages via a third party, or

sending letters or pictures.” Id.

On January 16, 2024, Bailey sent 95 text messages to Jones within a

26-minute span. Jones responded 18 times, using terse language,

demonstrating that she did not want to communicate with defendant or have

him come to her home. Jones’ responses to Bailey’s multiple messages did

not invite Bailey’s contact as he suggests.

Bailey claims the state failed to prove that he had the requisite specific

intent to inflict a continuity of emotional distress upon Jones. We disagree.

In the unpublished opinion State v. Terrio, supra, the court of appeal

considered whether the 2001 legislative changes to La. R.S. 14:40.2

removed the specific intent requirement from the offense of stalking. The

court said, after reviewing the legislative history of the revisions to the

stalking law, that the legislative purpose of the proposed changes was to

shift the focus from the offender’s intentions to the perceptions of the victim.

Id. The court pointed out that the legislature said that it redefined the crime

of stalking to require only that the defendant have the general intent to

repeatedly follow or harass the victim in a manner that would cause a
16

reasonable person to feel alarmed or to suffer emotional distress. Id. We

note also that the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Terrio’s writ application

following the court of appeal’s ruling. Id.

Jones testified that she found Bailey’s text messages menacing and

she feared for her safety. Bailey repeatedly threatened to forcibly enter her

home and to have a third person attack Jones. Bailey knew that the civil

protective order stated that he could not enter Jones’ home or contact her.

Jones saw Bailey on her street in the early morning hours less than one day

after receiving the extensive string of texts from Bailey that made her feel

threatened and suffer emotional distress.

We also agree with the state that the circumstantial evidence was

sufficient to prove that Bailey knew where Jones resided and went to her

street on January 17, 2024, for the purpose of harassing her. On November

26, 2023, Jones found an AirTag attached to her car. The civil protection

order was issued 10 days earlier on November 16, 2023. Bailey said in one

of his messages to Jones that he could drive by or stop in front of her house

since she lived on a public road. The jury could have inferred from the

circumstantial evidence that Bailey knew Jones’ address.

We find the evidence sufficient to show that any rational trier of fact

could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a

reasonable doubt. Defendant committed stalking against Jones by

intentionally and repeatedly harassing her in such a way that would cause a

reasonable person to feel alarmed or to suffer emotional distress; he also

violated the November 16, 2023, civil protective order.

17

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence of Martin

Dwayne Bailey, Jr. are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

18