State of Louisiana v. Diondre D. Romero

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

KA 12-31

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

DIONDRE D. ROMERO

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 51565
HONORABLE DURWOOD WAYNE CONQUE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY HOWARD EZELL
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Jimmie C. Peters, and Billy Howard Ezell,
Judges.

AFFIRMED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Michael Harson
District Attorney, Fifteenth Judicial District Court
P.O. Box 3306
Lafayette, LA 70502-3306
(337) 232-5170
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Beth Smith Fontenot
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 3183
Lake Charles, LA 70602
(337) 491-3864
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Diondre D. Romero

Laurie A. Hulin
Assistant District Attorney
Fifteenth Judicial District Court-Vermilion Parish
P. O. Box 175
Abbeville, LA 70511
(337) 898-4320
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Diondre D. Romero
Louisiana State Penitentiary
General Delivery
Angola, LA 70712
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Diondre D. Romero

EZELL, Judge.

The Defendant, Diondre D. Romero, was indicted by a grand jury with six

counts of aggravated rape occurring in April and May of 2009. The Defendant was

convicted as charged after a bench trial held July 19, 2011. At the October 27, 2011

sentencing, the Defendant was sentenced on each count to life imprisonment at hard

labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The

Defendant is before this court appealing his conviction.

FACTS

The facts of this case are set forth in Assignment of Error Number One below.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE and Pro Se Assignment of Error

The Defendant contends the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to

convict him of six counts of aggravated rape because the victim’s testimony contained

internal inconsistencies and conflicted with other testimony presented at trial.

Additionally, the Defendant claims the physical evidence was inconclusive as to the

occurrence of rape.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:42(A) provides in pertinent part:

Aggravated rape is a rape committed upon a person sixty-five years of
age or older or where the anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse is
deemed to be without lawful consent of the victim because it is
committed under any one or more of the following circumstances:

....

(4) When the victim is under the age of thirteen years. Lack of
knowledge of the victim’s age shall not be a defense.

In State v. J.F., 05-1410, pp. 8-11 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 927 So.2d 614, 619-

21, writ denied, 06-1424 (La. 12/8/06), 943 So.2d 1060 (alteration in original), this

court stated:

In State v. Touchet, 04-1027, pp. 1-2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/9/05), 897
So.2d 900, 902, this court stated:

With regard to sufficiency of the evidence, this court set
forth as follows in State v. Lambert, 97-64, pp. 4-5 (La.App.
3 Cir. 9/30/98), 720 So.2d 724, 726-27:

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 (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 witness. Therefore, the
appellate court should not second-guess the
credibility determination of the trier of fact
beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the
Jackson standard of review. See King, 436
So.2d 559, citing State v. Richardson, 425
So.2d 1228 (La.1983).

In order for the State to obtain a conviction, it must
prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
In order for this court to affirm a conviction, the record must
reflect that the State has satisfied this burden of proving the
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Kennerson, 96-1518 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/97), 695 So.2d
1367.

....

In State v. Schexnaider, 03-144, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/03), 852
So.2d 450, 457 (quoting State v. Williams, 00-981, p. 7 (La.App. 5 Cir.
4/11/01), 786 So.2d 805, 810, writ denied, 01-1377 (La.3/28/02), 812
So.2d 646), a panel of this court explained:

The testimony of the victim alone can be sufficient to
establish the elements of a sexual offense, even where the
State does not introduce medical, scientific or physical
evidence to prove the commission of the offense. State v.
Hotoph, 99-243 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/10/99), 750 So.2d
1036, 1045, writ denied, 99-3477 (La.6/30/00), 765 So.2d
1062 and 00-0150 (La.6/30/00), 765 So.2d 1066; State v.
Hawkins, 99-217 (La.App. 5th Cir.7/2/99), 740 So.2d 768,
769; State v. Hubbard, 97-916 (La.App. 5th Cir.1/27/98),
708 So.2d 1099, 1104, writ denied, 98-0643 (La.8/28/98),
723 So.2d 415.

2

The credibility of a witness, including the victim, is
within the discretion of the trier of fact, who may accept or
reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. Id.
“[T]he Jackson standard does not serve as a vehicle for a
reviewing court to second guess the rational credibility
determinations of the fact finder at trial.” State v. Juluke,
98-341 (La.1/8/99), 725 So.2d 1291, 1293.

At trial, the victim, L.T., testified that her birthdate is October 31, 1999, making

her eleven years old at the time of trial.1 For the two-and-one-half years preceding

trial, L.T. lived with her grandmother. Prior to that time, she resided with her mother,

the Defendant, whom she calls “Drey,” her sister, and two brothers on Graceland

Avenue. According to L.T. she lived with “Drey” for a year and a half until the State

removed her from her mother’s custody and placed her with her grandmother.

L.T. testified that during the time she lived with her mother and the Defendant,

she was sexually abused or raped. L.T. confirmed that she had talked to (OCS),

doctors, her grandmother, her mother, her nanny, and Ms. Nicki from Hearts of Hope

about the incidents. L.T. described the first incident as follows:

A. He told me to go in the room because we was going play a game, and
I went, and he turned the lights off, and he locked the door, and he
pushed me on the bed, and he pulled his pants down, and he pulled
mine’s down, and he held me down, and he - - I don’t know how to put
this - - he stuck his prostate into my vagina.

L.T. testified that after the Defendant did this, she went into the bathroom and

washed herself off as he instructed her to do. She noticed “white stuff” and blood

coming out of her vagina. According to L.T., this occurred six times. When

questioned how she knew it was six times, she replied, “[b]ecause I can remember.”

According to L.T., this incident occurred in her mother’s and the Defendant’s

bedroom while her sister and two brothers were in living room. When asked where

her mother was, L.T. replied that she was an exotic dancer at a strip club. She worked

nights and returned home at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning. While her mother was at

1
As required by La.R.S. 46:1844(W), the initials of the parties involved are used to protect
the victim’s identity.

3

work, L.T. stayed with the Defendant. However, her nanny, Candida, would

occasionally stay with her.

The second incident was described by L.T. as follows:

I was coming out the bathroom, and I went into my room, because
we had two bathrooms, and I went into my room to get my clothes from
taking a bath, and he was in the room and locked the door and turned the
lights off and did what he did the first time.

This incident took place in the “kids’ room” while her brothers and sister were

in the living room. The Defendant stopped when his brother, Sean Romero, knocked

on the door. L.T. testified that the Defendant left to talk to his brother in his bedroom

and L.T. went into the bathroom.

L.T. recalled another incident that occurred when she was in the bathroom. The

Defendant entered the room, turned off the lights, pushed her on the floor, and “did

what he did.” After he left, she got into the tub and “washed [herself] out” “[b]ecause

[she] didn’t feel right.” Her mother was not at home when this incident occurred.

L.T. testified she recalled another incident when she was in “the room by

[herself] looking for clothes from [her] mamma’s box.” The Defendant entered the

room, turned off the lights, and “did what he did all the other times.” When he left the

room, the victim cleaned herself in the tub. L.T. confirmed that “this” occurred about

six times, including a time when she and Drey were alone and her siblings were not at

home. According to L.T., adults were not present in the house when the incidents

occurred. L.T. testified that the incidents occurred only at the house on Graceland.

L.T. testified that she never told her mother because the Defendant threatened

her and she was scared. L.T. testified she eventually told her grandmother that

“Drey” put his prostate in her vagina. Her grandmother asked, “you’re not a virgin

anymore?” and L.T. said “no.” L.T.’s grandmother then called Ms. Katie.2

2
It appears the victim was referring to Katie McConnell from OCS.
4

L.T. testified she had bruises on her arms and legs which she did not show to

anyone. During April and May, she wore a jacket (a goldish/brown South Pole jacket)

to school despite the hot weather. On cross-examination, L.T. testified her mother did

not ask her about why she was wearing a jacket because “she was too full of drugs.”

L.T. testified her sister inquired but L.T. did not tell her why.

On cross-examination, L.T. testified that she first reported that these incidents

occurred six or seven times, but when she could not remember the seventh incident,

she maintained that the incidents occurred six times. L.T. testified that when the

incidents occurred, she tried to push the Defendant off her. L.T. testified she tried to

scream for help but the TV or music would be too loud for the others to hear her.

L.T. testified on cross-examination that she did not tell anyone that an incident

occurred on May 13, 2009. Nor did she recall telling anyone that she had no bleeding

as a result of the incidents. She also testified she could not recall when her mother

went to a drug rehab program, but she recalled she was there for approximately two

weeks. She testified that she did not recall telling anyone that this did not happen

while her mother was in rehab. G.T., L.T.’s grandmother, testified that she had a

conversation with L.T. that prompted her to call police. L.T. told her that the

Defendant raped her six times. L.T. told G.T. that while her mother was away, she

went in the room with the Defendant and he closed the door and turned up the music.

He pulled her pants down and his pants down and “put it in her.” L.T. said the

Defendant put his legs over hers and held her arms so she would not move. L.T. said

the Defendant told her if she said anything he would kill her mother. When the

incident was over, L.T. washed herself off in the bathroom because she felt dirty.

Although G.T. initially testified that L.T. did not talk about anything coming out of

her body, after being shown her 2009 written statement to the Abbeville Police

Department, she recalled that L.T. told her she had not bled but she had slimy stuff

5

coming from her body. G.T. testified she called Katie McConnell from OCS and Ms.

McConnell came and questioned L.T.

Dr. Myriam Hutchinson, the coroner for Vermilion Parish, examined the victim

on June 18, 2009. She testified that the physical examination of the pelvic and vulvar

area was normal but the victim’s hymen was not intact. She testified that this can

result from any penetration, and she confirmed that this type of injury is consistent

with penile penetration. According to Dr. Hutchinson there was no way to tell how

long the hymen had been missing.

On cross-examination Dr. Hutchinson confirmed that some women are born

without a hymen. She was further asked, “Isn’t it also a fact that hymens can be

injured or completely lost through certain activities? Playing, sports, things of that

nature can cause damage to the hymen?” to which she responded, “If there is a

penetration, it can happen.” Dr. Hutchinson confirmed that she found no evidence of

any tears, lesions, or scars in the victim’s vaginal area. She was asked if she found this

unusual; she explained that it was normal not to see any of this after the passage of a

month. Dr. Hutchinson further explained there would be no scars unless there was a

major tear; the loss of the hymen would not result in tears, but it could cause bleeding.

Dr. Hutchinson was asked if she found it unusual that there was no bleeding.

She explained that she would not expect to find bleeding because “usually penetration

like this will heal like in six, seven days.” When asked whether it was unusual to have

no bleeding with the loss of the hymen, Dr. Hutchinson stated, “It can bleed, but in

some cases they don’t bleed.”

Dr. Hutchinson was asked what the victim reported to her. Her records stated,

“He hold my hands back, put his thing in front, no back, nor in the mouth, no finger,

locked the door, turned off the lights. Sister was trying to get in, and she couldn’t

come inside the room.” The nurses wrote in the report that the last occurrence was on

May 13, 2009.

6

On redirect examination, Dr. Hutchinson was asked whether the injury was

consistent with sexual abuse considering the history that was provided and the results

of her examination; she responded that it was.

L.T.’s mother, T.T., testified that from March 31, 2009 through May of 2009,

she lived on Graceland Avenue with her four children and the Defendant. The

Defendant kept the children while she worked at a strip club from approximately 5:00

p.m. until 2:30 or 2:45 a.m. Her living arrangement with the Defendant ended when

she went to jail on May 13, 2009. According to T.T., during the time she lived with

the Defendant, the victim did not complain of sexual abuse.

On cross-examination, T.T. testified that she entered rehab at the end of April

or beginning of May, and she was there for a week. She testified she was at home for

approximately a week before her arrest and during that time she did not work. During

that time, the children were left alone with the Defendant if T.T. had to go somewhere

such as the store.

T.T. was questioned about Mother’s Day (May 10th) weekend that year. She

testified that the children were at her mother’s house on Friday and Saturday, and she

and the Defendant picked them up on Sunday. According to T.T., on Sunday

(Mother’s Day), they went to the Defendant’s mother’s house with the children, and

he was not left alone with the children that day. On Monday, T.T. got a call saying

that the victim was sick at school. OCS picked her up and brought her to the hospital.

T.T. was also at the hospital because she had been in a car wreck that day. According

to T.T., the Defendant brought the children to his mother’s house. L.T. left the

hospital with the Defendant that night without seeing the doctor because it was taking

too long, and she was feeling better. According to T.T., the Defendant took L.T. to

his mother’s house with the rest of the children.

T.T. was released from the hospital and went home that night after purchasing

medication for L.T. T.T. and the children went to bed. On Wednesday, T.T. was

7

arrested; OCS picked up the children when they got off the school bus and took them

to T.T.’s mother’s house. T.T. confirmed that from Friday to the date of her arrest,

the Defendant was not alone with the children. According to T.T., she learned of

L.T.’s allegations against the Defendant on the day before Father’s Day in 2009 while

she was incarcerated. T.T. testified that during the time she and the Defendant lived

together, she did not see any signs of abuse.

On redirect examination, T.T. acknowledged that she was under the influence

of drugs in April of 2009 which may have made it difficult to actually perceive what

was going on. She also confirmed there were times when she was out of rehab and

not employed at the Paradise Club that she may have been gone from the home

shopping or out with friends late at night:

Q. Would there have been opportunity - - like you said, you went to the
store - - where Diondre was left, Mr. Romero, was left alone with the
children?

A. Uh-huh (“Yes”).

Q. Would there have been times that you went out with the girls or out
with your friends late at night to another club at that point in time?

A. Maybe. Most likely.

Q. Most likely?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. Would this have been during the hours that would have been similar
to the hours that you worked?

A. Yes.

T.T. was asked whether she thought it was odd that L.T. wore a coat to school

during the months of April and May. She responded that she did not find it odd

because L.T. told her that it was because she was cold in her classroom.

Nicolette Joseph of “Hearts of Hope, the Children’s Advocacy Center” testified

she interviewed L.T. on June 24, 2009. The recording of the interview was played

during the trial. In the interview, the victim said that while her mother was at work

8

(from 7 p.m. to 2 a.m.), the Defendant would tell her to come see because he had

something for her. He put his “thing” in her, and when her sister attempted to open

the door, he would tell her they were playing. L.T. said this occurred in her mother’s

room after the Defendant closed and locked the door. According to L.T., the

Defendant put his “thing” in her six or seven times when she was nine.

L.T. was asked what happened the first time he did this, and L.T. responded

that after the Defendant did this, he told her to go wipe herself. She said white slimy

stuff came out of her “flower.” She said his “thing” touched the inside of her

“flower.” She said she never told anyone about what he did because he had told her

on more than one occasion that he would beat her.

During the incidents, L.T. said the Defendant would grab her arms and legs and

put his “thing” in her “flower” after he had taken her clothes off and put them on side

of the bed. When he put his thing in her “flower,” she said it made her feel nasty and

it would hurt her “flower.” She said his legs would move around, and he would move

his “thing” in and out. He would stop (she didn’t know why), and he would then make

her use the bathroom.

L.T. said this would occur in the dark, and she said she never saw the

Defendant’s “thing.” She said this occurred a few months before the State took her

away from her mother. She would wear a jacket to cover the bruises on her wrists and

long socks to cover the bruises on her ankles. According to L.T., no one else has ever

put their “thing” in her “flower.”

Near the end of the interview, L.T. said her mother was in rehab for a couple of

weeks, and during that time, they stayed with the Defendant. The Defendant’s

brother, his girlfriend, and baby stayed with them during this time. L.T. said the

Defendant did not touch her “flower” while her mother was in rehab.

Katherine McConnell testified for the defense. She was the caseworker with

the Department of Children and Family Services who worked with L.T. She

9

conducted an interview on June 17, 2009. She confirmed that during the interview,

L.T. stated that her mother was in drug rehab only days before OCS became involved

and that while her mother was in rehab, the Defendant raped her six or seven times

over a period of six or seven days. Ms. McConnell recalled that L.T. told her that

right before OCS took them, the Defendant would make her go in a room away from

the other children and would make her have sex with him.

The Defendant argues on appeal that because L.T.’s testimony contained

internal inconsistencies, conflicted with other testimony at trial, and was not

supported by conclusive physical evidence, it was not sufficient to support the judge’s

finding of guilt. Specifically, the Defendant notes the following in support of his

argument.

INCONSISTENCIES ABOUT WHETHER THE RAPES OCCURRED WHILE
L.T.’S MOTHER WAS IN REHAB

The Defendant points out that in the victim’s first interview on June 17, 2009,

she told Ms. McConnell that the Defendant raped her while her mother was in rehab,

but she then said in her Child Advocacy Center interview on June 24, 2009 that the

Defendant did not touch her while her mother was in rehab.

L.T.’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS ABOUT WHEN THE LAST RAPE
OCCURRED:

Next, the Defendant points out that the victim gave inconsistent statements

about when the last rape occurred. L.T. reported to Dr. Hutchinson that the last rape

occurred on May 13, 2009, but at trial, L.T. denied telling anyone this. Further,

according to T.T., L.T. and the Defendant were not alone from Friday, May 8, 2009,

until her arrest on May 13, 2009.

L.T.’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS ABOUT THE TIME PERIOD IN

WHICH THE RAPES OCCURRED:

The Defendant notes that L.T. told her grandmother that she was raped while

her mother was “stripping in the bars,” but she told Ms. McDonnell that she was raped

10

while her mother was in rehab, just days before OCS’s involvement. She also told Ms.

McDonnell on June 17, 2009, that the rapes occurred six or seven times over a period

of six to seven days. However, on June 24, 2009, she told the child advocacy

interviewer that the rapes occurred while her mom was at work, not at rehab, and that

one of the rapes occurred a few months before OCS removed her and her siblings

from the home. At trial, L.T. denied telling anyone that the rapes occurred just prior

to OCS’s removal of her and her siblings, and she denied telling anyone that the rapes

occurred over a period of six to seven days.

L.T.’S INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE RAPES:

L.T. told her grandmother that she did not bleed, but at trial, she testified she

noticed blood after one of the rapes, and she denied telling anyone there was no blood.

Additionally, during the interview with the child advocacy worker, L.T. consistently

referred to her vagina as her “flower,” but at trial, she called it her “cat” and denied

ever referring to it as her “flower.”

THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT CONCLUSIVELY SHOW THAT A
RAPE OCCURRED:

The Defendant points out that although L.T.’s hymen was not intact, Dr.

Hutchinson found no tears, lesions, or scars. Dr. Hutchinson could not determine if

L.T. was born without a hymen, as is the case with some women. Further, she noted

that hymens can be injured or lost through activities such as playing and sports.

The Defendant contends that L.T.’s inconsistencies are troubling because they

occurred so closely together and the victim’s testimony, which was not supported by

conclusive physical evidence, was the only evidence offered to support the finding of

guilt.

This court was faced with a similar argument of inconsistent testimony in State

v. Schexnaider, 03-144 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/03), 852 So.2d 450, a case involving rape

of a thirteen-year-old girl. On appeal, the Defendant claimed there was insufficient

11

evidence to convict him due to irreconcilable inconsistencies in the testimony at trial

regarding the victim’s recollection of details of the rape, whether the victim ate dinner

with her family on the night of the incident, what clothes the victim was wearing

when she was raped, and testimony by the victim as to how her clothes were removed

during the rape. This court concluded:

The inconsistencies pointed out by the Defendant do not concern
the actual act of forcible rape. There are no contradictions in E.N.’s
testimony regarding the actual act of forced intercourse with the
Defendant. The trial court considered the testimony of all witnesses in
this case and made a credibility determination that should not be second
guessed by this court. Furthermore, “[t]he fact that the record contains
evidence which conflicts with the testimony accepted by the trier of fact
does not render the evidence accepted by the trier of fact insufficient.”
State v. Holley, 01-0254, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/01), 799 So.2d 578,
583, citing State v. Tompkins, 403 So.2d 644 (La.1981), appeal after
remand, 429 So.2d 1385 (La.1982).

The following is well settled:

The testimony of the victim alone can be sufficient to
establish the elements of a sexual offense, even where the
State does not introduce medical, scientific or physical
evidence to prove the commission of the offense. State v.
Hotoph, 99-243 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/10/99), 750 So.2d
1036, 1045, writ denied, 99-3477 (La.6/30/00), 765 So.2d
1062 and 00-0150 (La.6/30/00), 765 So.2d 1066; State v.
Hawkins, 99-217 (La.App. 5th Cir.7/2/99), 740 So.2d 768,
769; State v. Hubbard, 97-916 (La.App. 5th Cir.1/27/98),
708 So.2d 1099, 1104, writ denied, 98-0643 (La.8/28/98),
723 So.2d 415.

The credibility of a witness, including the victim, is
within the discretion of the trier of fact, who may accept or
reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. Id.
“[T]he Jackson standard does not serve as a vehicle for a
reviewing court to second guess the rational credibility
determinations of the fact finder at trial.” State v. Juluke,
98-341 (La.1/8/99), 725 So.2d 1291, 1293.

State v. Williams, 00-981, p. 7 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/11/01), 786 So.2d 805,
810, writ denied, 01-1377 (La.3/28/02), 812 So.2d 646. The case sub
judice is stronger than the ones cited above in that, in the case sub judice,
the State introduced medical evidence which supported the victim’s
testimony.

We find no error by the trial court’s choosing to believe E.N.’s
testimony over that of the Defendant.

12

Id. at 456-57 (alterations in original).

The inconsistencies pointed out by the Defendant do not concern the actual act

of aggravated rape. Further, although the medical evidence did not conclusively

establish that a rape occurred, it supported the victim’s testimony. Viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could

have found the elements of the offenses proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, this assignment of error has no merit.

PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In his pro se brief, the Defendant focuses on Dr. Hutchinson’s testimony that

the victim had no hymen and some women are born that way. Additionally, he notes

there was no evidence of any tears, lesions, scars, or bruising. He contends this

evidence, combined with the internal inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, does

not support the convictions in this case. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing

assignment of error, the court finds no merit to this claim.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO

The Defendant contends he was given incorrect information concerning the

time limitation for filing an application for post-conviction relief when he was told he

had the right, “within the next two years, to file motions for post-conviction relief if

you find that something was not done properly in your case.” The State agrees, noting

the court failed to inform the Defendant that the two-year time limitation runs from

the finality of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the trial court is instructed to

inform the Defendant of the correct provisions of Article 930.8 by sending appropriate

written notice to the Defendant within ten days of the rendition of the opinion and to

file written proof in the record that the Defendant received the notice. State v. Roe, 05-

116 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/05), 903 So.2d 1265, writ denied, 05-1762 (La. 2/10/06), 924

So.2d 163.

13

DISPOSITION

The Defendant’s convictions are affirmed, and the trial court is instructed to

inform the Defendant of the correct provisions of La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8 by

sending appropriate written notice to the Defendant within ten days of the rendition of

the opinion and to file written proof in the record that the Defendant received the

notice.

AFFIRMED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules-

Courts of Appeal. Rule 2-16.3.

14