State of Louisiana v. Johnnie M. Lefear

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

07-621

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JOHNNIE M. LEFEAR

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CADDO, NO. 250,431
HONORABLE JOHN MOSLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

OSWALD A. DECUIR
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and J. David Painter,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Paul J. Carmouche
District Attorney
Damon Kervin
Assistant District Attorney
First Judicial District Court
Parish of Caddo
501 Texas Street
Shreveport, La 71101-5400
(318) 429-7618
Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana

John Ford McWilliams, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney
First Judicial District Court
Parish of Caddo
501 Texas Street
Shreveport, La 71101-5400
(318) 429-7618
Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana

Anthony Hollis
Attorney at Law
401 Edwards, Suite 1111
Shreveport, LA 71101
(318) 629-1235
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Johnnie M. Lefear

DECUIR, Judge.

The Defendant, Johnnie M. Lefear, was charged by bill of information with

filing a false public record, a violation of La.R.S. 14:133. Following a bench trial

held on December 5, 2006, the Defendant was found guilty as charged. On January

10, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to fifteen months at hard labor, to be served

concurrently with any other sentence and with credit for time served. The Defendant

was also ordered to pay costs, or in default thereof, to serve one day in the parish jail.

The Defendant appealed to the second circuit, but the court recused itself en banc

from hearing the appeal. By order of the supreme court, the Defendant is now before

this court on appeal, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of

filing a false public record.

The record before us illustrates the following facts: The Defendant, a

homosexual inmate at Caddo Correctional Center, participated in oral sexual acts on

October 10, 2005, with Deputy Herbert Paul Simons, an employee of the prison.

Shortly thereafter, the Defendant completed a form, entitled “Administrative Remedy

Request” and dated October 10, 2005, wherein he asserted that he was forced to

perform oral sex on the deputy, and he requested financial compensation and removal

from the prison facility. In the ensuing investigation, recordings of the Defendant’s

telephone conversations immediately before and after the sexual acts took place were

discovered. The recordings led investigators to believe that the Defendant was not

forced into having sex with the deputy; rather, the telephone conversations indicated

that the Defendant planned or at least agreed to the sexual conduct so that he could

sue the prison and collect a significant sum of money as damages. Consequently, the

Defendant was charged with filing a false public record based on the allegation of

forced sexual acts in the Administrative Remedy Request.

The State admits that the Defendant and Deputy Simons engaged in oral sexual

acts. Indeed, Deputy Simons immediately lost his job and was prosecuted for sexual

misconduct with inmates. The basis of the charge against the Defendant, and the

question before this court on appeal, however, is whether the sexual conduct was

forced or whether it was consensual. The Defendant contends the evidence presented

at trial was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegation of

forced sexual conduct was false.

The analysis for a claim of insufficient evidence is well-settled:

When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the
critical inquiry of the reviewing court 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, 99 S.Ct.
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, rehearing denied, 444 U.S. 890, 100 S.Ct. 195,
62 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979); State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King, 436 So.2d 559
(La.1983); State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982); State v. Moody,
393 So.2d 1212 (La.1981). It is the role of the fact finder to weigh the
respective credibility of the witnesses, and therefore, the appellate court
should not second guess the credibility determinations of the triers of
fact beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of
review. See State ex rel. Graffagnino, 436 So.2d 559 (citing State v.
Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228 (La.1983)). In order for this Court to
affirm a conviction, however, the record must reflect that the state has
satisfied its burden of proving the elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.

State v. Kennerson, 96-1518, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/97), 695 So.2d 1367, 1371.

The elements of filing a false public record are set forth in La.R.S. 14:133

which reads, in pertinent part, “A. Filing false public records is the filing or

depositing for record in any public office or with any public official, or the

maintaining as required by law, regulation, or rule, with knowledge of its falsity, of

any of the following: . . . (3) Any document containing a false statement or false

representation of a material fact.”

2

At trial, the State offered into evidence the original Administrative Remedy

Request completed by the Defendant, as well as the transcript and recording of two

telephone conversations between the Defendant and an unidentified male who was,

apparently from the language used in the conversations, an intimate friend of the

Defendant. In the first conversation of October 10, 2005, the Defendant began by

saying, “I’m probably fixing to cheat on you.” He described an encounter with

Deputy Simons wherein the deputy looked at him naked, touched him, and

commented that they would see each other at a later time “to do what we need to do.”

The Defendant explained that he thought he could file a suit against the jail for sexual

harassment and could win perhaps $250,000.00 to $500,000.00; he asked his friend

to confirm this by calling a few lawyers.

Later in the conversation, the Defendant asked if he should proceed with this

plan and have sex with the deputy. He also gave instructions to have someone call

the jail and report the sexual misconduct by the deputy. In response to questions by

the unidentified friend and a third party who had joined in the conversation, the

Defendant said that he was scared but that he did not know what would happen if he

refused the deputy’s advances. The three men discussed what type of evidence he

should try to gather and whether there might be any witnesses to corroborate his

story.

The second conversation took place between the same parties later that day.

The Defendant described the sexual acts which had just taken place and explained

that he had the evidence “all over my suit.” He wanted someone to call the jail to

report the incident immediately. The Defendant was put on a three-way call with his

probation officer whom he informed of the deputy’s conduct. The Defendant once

again discussed the money he would receive as a result of this incident and

3

envisioned how he would spend the money. The callers agreed that they would report

the incident and contact a lawyer first thing in the morning.

Based on this evidence, the trial court found the Defendant had not been forced

into having sex with the deputy and, therefore, the allegations in the Administrative

Remedy Request were false:

It is clear to the Court based upon the evidence that the defendant
clearly had a purpose of obtaining financial gains in connection with this
matter. He purposely discussed the plan and how he would execute this
matter, how he would withhold the evidence in connection with this
matter in order to receive financial gains. He even discussed an amount
that he wished to receive in connection with this matter. Clearly, the
report indicates that he was forced to perform this act. And then on the
CD, the defendant stated that he was unaware of what the consequences
would be if he did not go through with it, because he was asked that
question by one of the parties engaged in the three-way conversation.
So in the opinion of the Court, clearly the report is false, and the Court
will find the defendant guilty as charged.

The evidence in the record demonstrates that Deputy Simons initiated the

sexual activity with the Defendant. However, the Defendant clearly noticed the

advances, responded to them, and willingly proceeded to engage in oral sex. Rather

than a forced encounter, the Defendant had the opportunity to consider the situation,

discuss it with friends, and formulate a plan for a successful lawsuit.

Having reviewed the evidence in the record before us, we conclude the State

satisfied its burden of proving the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable

doubt. We find no error in the judgment rendered by the trial court and no errors

patent on the face of the record. We therefore affirm the Defendant’s conviction and

sentence.

AFFIRMED.

4