State of Louisiana v. Wendell Price

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

14-127

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

WENDELL PRICE

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ACADIA, NO. 79587
HONORABLE JOHN D. TRAHAN, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Marc T. Amy, and Elizabeth A. Pickett,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

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

Harold D. Register, Jr.
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 80214
Lafayette, LA 70598-0214
(337) 981-6644
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:
Wendell Price

PICKETT, Judge.

FACTS

On April 2, 2012, Officer Joseph Cormier of the Rayne Police Department

was working a speed enforcement detail on the north side of the railroad tracks in

Rayne when a vehicle approached him. “[T]he driver was very frantic, stating that

her boyfriend had just been brutally beaten by three black males, and they had a

tan dog with them.” The passenger had a face full of blood with a “bent, possibly

broken” nose, and he appeared to be in a lot of pain. The driver and passenger

reported the incident occurred on Live Oak. One of the three black men was

wearing a red shirt, and another was a large man wearing a white shirt. Officer

Cormier sent them to the police department and dispatched an ambulance to meet

them. He then began a patrol to look for the suspects.

On Live Oak, Officer Cormier first saw a black man wearing a red shirt. He

spoke to the man, obtained his personal information, and “told him to be on his

way.” He looked down the street and saw a tan dog in the roadway. He followed

it, and it went into the defendant‟s yard. The defendant, “a large, black male

wearing a white t-shirt,” was standing in the driveway.

The tan dog, a Chinese Char-Pei and Rottweiler mix, and two other dogs, a

Chinese Char-Pei and a Rottweiler, were in the yard. When Officer Cormier asked

the defendant to put his dogs away, the defendant refused. By then, Officer Joseph

Credeur had arrived, but he remained inside his vehicle. An altercation ensued in

which Officer Cormier hit the defendant in the head with his baton. Ultimately,

Officer Credeur ended the altercation by using his Taser on the defendant, who

was then arrested.

The defendant, Wendell Price, was charged with resisting an officer with

force, a violation of La.R.S. 14:108.2, and battery of a police officer, a violation of

La.R.S. 14:34.2, on August 16, 2012. The trial court severed the counts, and a jury

found the defendant guilty of the lesser charge of resisting an officer, a violation of

La.R.S. 14:108, on October 23, 2013. The trial court sentenced the defendant to

serve a suspended sentence of six months in the parish jail. The trial court also

placed the defendant on six months of misdemeanor probation with the special

conditions of paying a $250.00 fine and $227.50 in court costs and completing an

anger management program.

The defendant now appeals his conviction.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

1. The trial court erred in its determination that Officer Joseph
Cormier and Officer Joseph Credeur provided credible testimony
although there were several blaring [sic] internal contradictions and
irreconcilable conflicts within their respective testimonies.

2. The trial court erred in failing to find that the State proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that Wendell Price was resisting an unlawful arrest
when Officer Joseph Cormier began to violently strike Price to effect
the unlawful arrest.

3. The trial court erred in failing to consider Rayne Ordinance Sec. 18-
2 when Wendell Price‟s dogs were in his yard on private property.

4. The trial court erred in failing to consider that there was no
probable cause to arrest Wendell Price when Price was merely outside
speaking on the phone watching his well-trained dogs urinate and thus
became the subject of a violent tirade by Officer Joseph Cormier.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed by

this court for errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record,

we find one error patent.

2

The record before this court does not indicate that the trial court advised the

defendant of the prescriptive period for filing post-conviction relief as required by

La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8. Thus, the trial court is directed to inform the defendant

of the provisions of Article 930.8 by sending appropriate written notice to the

defendant within ten days of the rendition of this 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.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBERS ONE AND TWO

The defendant‟s first two assignments of error allege the evidence was

insufficient to convict him. First, the defendant argues the trial court erred in its

determination that Officers Cormier and Credeur provided credible testimony in

light of “several blaring [sic] internal contradictions and irreconcilable conflicts

within their respective testimonies [sic] [.]” Next, the defendant contends the trial

court erred in failing to find he was resisting an unlawful arrest when Officer

Cormier “began to violently strike [him] to effect the unlawful arrest[.]”

The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether,

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational

trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the

essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La. 7/10/06),

936 So.2d 108, 170, cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1221, 127 S.Ct. 1279 (2007) (citing

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979); State v. Captville, 448

So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984)). The Jackson standard of review is now legislatively

embodied in La.Code Crim.P. art. 821. It does not allow the appellate court “to

substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v.

Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517, 521 (citing State v. Robertson,

3

96-1048 (La. 10/4/96), 680 So.2d 1165; State v. Lubrano, 563 So.2d 847, 850

(La.1990)). The appellate court‟s function is not to assess the credibility of

witnesses or to reweigh the evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661

So.2d 442.

The factfinder‟s role is to weigh the credibility of witnesses. State v. Ryan,

07-504 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/07), 969 So.2d 1268. Thus, other than insuring the

sufficiency evaluation standard of Jackson, “the appellate court should not

second-guess the credibility determination of the trier of fact,” but rather, it should

defer to the rational credibility and evidentiary determinations of the jury. Id. at

1270 (quoting State v. Lambert, 97-64, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/30/98), 720 So.2d

724, 727). Our supreme court has stated:

However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finder‟s
discretion and its role in determining the credibility of witnesses “only
to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of
law.” State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305, 1310 (La.1988). In
determining the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction,
an appellate court must preserve “„the factfinder‟s role as weigher of
the evidence‟ by reviewing „all of the evidence . . . in the light most
favorable to the prosecution.‟” McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. [120,
134], 130 S.Ct. 665, 674, 175 L.Ed.2d 582 (quoting Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560
(1979)). When so viewed by an appellate court, the relevant question
is whether, on the evidence presented at trial, “any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789.
Applied in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, . . . this
fundamental principle of review means that when a jury “reasonably
rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant[ ], that
hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another
hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.” State v. Captville, 448
So.2d 676, 680 (La.1984).

State v. Strother, 09-2357, pp. 10-11 (La. 10/22/10), 49 So.3d 372, 378 (third

alteration in original).

4

Officer Cormier testified he pulled into the defendant‟s driveway and asked

him to put the three large dogs away for safety purposes so he could talk to him.

The defendant first walked toward his house but then “came back and started

cursing, saying he‟s not putting his dogs away.” Officer Cormier told the

defendant he would place him under arrest if he did not put his dogs away. The

defendant refused, saying the dogs “were just using the restroom.”

When Officer Cormier told the defendant he had “one last chance” to put the

dogs away or be placed under arrest,” the defendant responded, “I‟m not putting

my dogs away. Get the F off my property. You don‟t belong here, and I‟m not

being arrested.” Officer Cormier told the defendant he was placing him under

arrest. When he “went to grab [the defendant‟s] hand and put a cuff on it, he

pulled back and hit me in the jaw with his left hand.” Officer Cormier tried again,

and he and the defendant “wrestled for a second.” The defendant then put Officer

Cormier in “a chokehold, a C-grip chokehold.”

At that point, Officer Cormier pulled out an expandable baton and pushed

the defendant away. The defendant ran toward his house with Officer Cormier in

pursuit. They fought some, and the defendant got Officer Cormier into another C-

grip, which he described as “when you grab someone by the neck . . . and you‟re

squeezing, and you‟re trying to choke them . . . There‟s a lot of things that can be

damaged in here which would cause a lot of turmoil and suffocation.” The

defendant and Officer Cormier were pinned between the house and the car, where

Officer Cormier had no room to push the defendant back. He continuously struck

the defendant. Officer Cormier testified he “was in fear of [his] life.” He said he

considered pulling his weapon and shooting the defendant “so that at least [he]

could survive and go home,” but he refrained. He knew he would pass out, be

5

severely hurt, or possibly die if he could not get out of the chokehold. Officer

Credeur then used a Taser on the defendant that released the hold he had on Officer

Cormier. The officers cuffed the defendant, escorted him to their vehicle, and

transported him.

Officer Cormier was “investigating a crime, a very serious, felony, heinous

crime where three persons committed a second degree battery, and [the defendant]

was a possible suspect.” He believed the defendant could have been arrested

simply for having one of his dogs in the street without a leash. Officer Cormier at

first sought only to gather information, but when the defendant refused his lawful

commands, he “commenced to placing him under arrest.” At the point the

defendant struck Officer Cormier, he committed battery on an officer, creating

another reason to arrest him.

Officer Cormier did not seek medical attention or take any pictures of his

face after the incident. He said he did not know if the defendant was ever

questioned about the original crime that led him to the residence.

Officer Cormier never told the defendant he was a suspect in a crime; he

explained, however, this was because he never had the opportunity to talk to the

defendant as he intended because the defendant refused to put up the dogs. The

dogs were “still running around and . . . leaving the yard and being on the road”

when the defendant was arrested and transported to the police station.

Officer Credeur testified that he received Officer Cormier‟s call on April 2,

2012, that a severely injured subject had approached him. Officer Cormier

reported the incident “possibly occurred around the Live Oak area with three males

with a large dog with them.” One wore a red shirt, and one wore a white shirt.

6

Officer Credeur and Sergeant Chris Cormier went to the area and began canvassing

it.

When Officer Credeur heard Officer Cormier advise over the radio he was

going to speak with a suspect at the corner of Live Oak and Perrodin, he went to

meet him and parked in the driveway behind him. Officer Cormier approached

Officer Credeur‟s vehicle and said he was going to advise the defendant to put up

his dogs or face arrest. The dogs were in the defendant‟s yard when Officer

Credeur arrived. Officer Credeur saw the defendant walking toward the residence.

Officer Credeur testified that he stayed inside his vehicle and began

checking his phone for information about another case from earlier that day. He

looked up “when [he] heard a commotion occur.” He saw Officer Cormier and the

defendant “underneath the carport area next to the rear – the back door and the

car.” Although they were “tussling,” they were not throwing punches. Officer

Credeur approached to break up the conflict and saw the defendant “had [Officer

Cormier] in a C-grip chokehold with the left arm.” Officer Cormier‟s feet were

two to three inches off the ground. Officer Credeur said he

could see daylight between Officer Cormier‟s shoes and the driveway. Officer

Credeur was unable to break up the conflict, and Officer Cormier was swinging his

baton “to try to break the grip any way possible.” Officer Credeur “pulled [his]

X26 Taser” and used the drive-stun on the defendant‟s armpit, which tases only the

immediate area, not the entire body. The defendant swung his arm, and the Taser

hit him again. Officer Credeur continued to tell the defendant to stop. When he

finally did, Officer Credeur told the defendant Officer Cormier was going to place

him under arrest.

7

By the time Officer Credeur used the Taser, Officer Cormier‟s “swinging

was slowing down as if he was losing breath as in strength.” He said he was

concerned for Officer Cormier‟s life. He heard none of the conversation between

Officer Cormier and the defendant, and he did not see the defendant hit Officer

Cormier. In the meantime, Kyestle Thomas, the mother of two of the defendant‟s

children, had come outside and was holding a baby. During the incident, Officer

Credeur had to move her out of the way to get to Officer Cormier and the

defendant. Although Officer Credeur noticed people standing across the street

from the defendant‟s house, he testified they would not have been able to see the

corner of the carport and the door to the defendant‟s residence where the incident

occurred.

The defendant and his witnesses told a different version of the incident at

trial. Kaiia Archangel said she was walking to her mother‟s house across the street

from the defendant‟s house on the day of the incident. She saw dogs running in the

defendant‟s yard when a Rayne police vehicle pulled up, and the officer hollered,

“Put the f_ _ _ _ing dog up.” The defendant asked, “What‟s the problem,” and the

officer said they were looking for a dog. Officer Cormier told the defendant, “Sir,

I said for you to put the f-ing dogs up. Put the dogs up now.” He then told the

defendant he was going to arrest him if he did not put the dogs away. Ms.

Archangel saw the officer try to grab the defendant and “hit him with the stick”

when the defendant tried to get away. Ms. Archangel admitted she may not have

heard the first exchange between Officer Cormier and the defendant. She never

saw the defendant take a swing at Officer Cormier or make any aggressive moves

toward him, and she never saw the defendant “put a headlock” on him. Ms.

8

Archangel specifically recalled seeing the defendant‟s father and brother at the

scene. They did not testify at trial.

Ms. Archangel testified the first statement she gave police on April 3, 2012,

“was screwed up from jump.” Even though she signed the statement, she “didn‟t

really read it” and “really didn‟t understand it.” She told her son “what [she]

wanted to be said. He rewrote her statement, she “typed it up,” and she had it

notarized on April 27, 2012, because the defendant “wanted it be right[.]” The

main difference between the two statements was the language Ms. Archangel said

Officer Cormier used. The first statement showed him politely saying “[s]ir, put

[t]he dogs up,” while the second statement said the first thing he said to the

defendant was “[p]ut your f_ _ _ing dogs up” when he arrived.

When Ms, Archangel testified before the grand jury, she testified Officer

Cormier might have asked the defendant to put his dogs up “in a nice way,” when

he first approached him. The defendant “probably said, „No,‟ and he probably p_ _

_ed [Officer Cormier] off.” At trial, she admitted she was “not remembering

everything . . . that probably happened that day.” However, she swore her second

statement was the truth. When asked whether Officer Cormier could have been

very courteous and professional in his first exchange with the defendant, Ms.

Archangel responded, “I can‟t answer that. I don‟t know that.” She then admitted

she “probably didn‟t” hear the first exchange.

Ms. Archangel also gave contradictory and confusing testimony about her

reading ability. Her second statement, signed before the notary, stated she could

not read. She testified she lacked the ability to read the first statement she gave on

April 3, 2012. However, she testified she attended school through the eleventh

grade. She testified she also attended classes to become a certified nursing

9

assistant for “maybe a month”; sometimes she studied, sometimes she did not. She

later worked at Wendy‟s as a cashier, operating a computer and making change.

Ms. Archangel completed her own applications when she applied for jobs. She

reviewed the first statement and determined “it was screwed up. It wasn‟t right.”

Her son then rewrote the statement, and she “typed it up.”

The tasks that Ms. Archangel said she accomplished would be difficult, if

not impossible, if she could not read. Her testimony regarding her reading ability,

which statement was correct, and what she actually saw and heard was confusing

and difficult to understand. The jury could have reasonably determined her

testimony was not credible or reliable.

Amanda Meche testified she was speaking to the defendant on the telephone

on April 2, 2012, when he told her the police had arrived. She heard the officer

“yelling obscenities at him and telling him to put his mother f-ing dogs up.” She

said the officer continued to curse at the defendant as the defendant asked what he

did wrong and if he could be taken to jail for letting his dog use the bathroom on

private property. For “maybe two or three minutes[,]” she “could hear just beating

and yelling and cursing on the other end from [the defendant] yelling and saying

„What did I do?‟ And [she] heard the officer just ke[ep] cursing at him and never

once told him what he did wrong at all.” She “just listened until the phone hung up

at him beating him . . . about five minutes total.” She said she heard the defendant

scream for help as he was being beaten, and she could tell who was hitting and

who was being hit. She maintained the defendant never swore at the officer.

Ms. Meche further testified she heard the defendant “hollering, „Ou, ou,

ou,‟” and insisted she could tell “who‟s hitting who.” She heard the noise the

phone made when it fell to the ground, and she “heard the licks” being hit. A

10

reasonable jury could determine Ms. Meche could not conclude which individual

made which sounds under these circumstances.

Kyestle Thomas also testified. She is the mother of the defendant‟s two

children. She testified she was “in the kitchen with the kids” when she heard loud

noises outside. She heard someone yell “[p]ut your f_ _ _ing dogs up[.]” When

she went outside, she heard the defendant ask why, and the officer repeated

himself, saying he would arrest the defendant if he did not put the dogs away.

Officer Cormier began hitting the defendant “with his black police stick.” When

the defendant tried to get away and go in the house, Officer Cormier followed him

under the carport. The defendant “tried to block himself from getting hit and

grabbed [Officer Cormier‟s] arm.” Officer Cormier “threw [the defendant] on the

car, started hitting him.” Officer Credeur arrived and “Tased [the defendant] in the

chest, and he went down on the ground” while the defendant leaned against the car

with Officer Cormier “on him, hitting him” over the head with the black baton.

Ms. Thomas said she never saw the defendant swing at the officer or put him in a

headlock. Ms. Thomas never knew the defendant‟s dogs to leave the yard.

The defendant testified he was on the phone with Ms. Meche when he let his

dogs out of their kennel. He saw Officers Cormier and Credeur pass, and Officer

Cormier waved at him. They went down the street, talked to someone for about

five minutes, “[t]hen all of a sudden,” one officer came back down his street and

pulled into his driveway.

The officer, who the defendant identified at trial as Officer Joseph Cormier,

rolled down his window and said, “Put your f_ _ _ing dogs in the cage.” The

defendant questioned what he had done wrong, and the officer said, “Put your f_ _

_ing dogs in the cage or I‟m going to place you under arrest.” The defendant

11

pointed out the “No Trespassing” signs posted on his home and asked if the officer

was going to arrest him for not putting his dogs up. The officer took out his baton

and started striking the defendant. The defendant said he grabbed the officer‟s

hand, and the officer “just start[ed] pounding on [his] head,” and the defendant

broke away from him. He tried to go in the house, but the officer grabbed him

from the doorway and threw him on the top of his car in the carport.

The defendant leaned back on the car with the officer choking him. The

defendant “grabbed him tight,” and the officer “got his baton and just started

banging [him] on [his] head and banging [him] on [his] head.” The defendant then

felt a shock, he started shaking, and he was on the ground. Officer Cormier started

asking him, “Where‟s the dope? . . . Where‟s the drugs?” Officers Cormier and

Credeur would not allow the defendant to put his dogs back in their kennel; “they

just threw [him] in the car.” He said he was never told he might be a suspect in a

crime. He denied ever having Officer Cormier in a chokehold. Even though other

witnesses testified in detail about the comments they heard from the officers and

the defendant, no one other than the defendant testified he/she heard the officers

ask the defendant anything concerning drugs.

The three dogs were a Rottweiler, a Chinese Shar-Pei, and a brown Chinese

Shar-Pei and Rottweiler mix. The defendant said he trained them to stay within the

boundaries of his property, and they have never strayed from it. He testified they

had never in their lives been on the street.

Police charged the defendant with “dogs at large, resisting arrest violently

with force, and battery on a police officer.” The defendant testified his refusal to

put away his dogs led to the incident. He said he was never arraigned on the

charge related to his refusal to put his dogs up, and he thought it “got dropped.”

12

The defendant complains about perceived contradictions between the

testimony of Officer Cormier and Officer Credeur. Officer Cormier did not

mention being lifted off the ground while the defendant had a chokehold on him.

Officer Credeur did not mention a suspect in a white shirt or Officer Cormier being

lifted off his feet in his police report, but he testified to that at trial. He did not take

a statement from Ms. Thomas, who was close to the altercation, and he did not see

the defendant‟s dogs in the street. As Officer Credeur explained, “Not all officers

on the scene have to see the same crime committed . . . for it to be an arrestable

offense or a citation issued.”

Further, the defendant questions Officer Credeur‟s memory of the incident.

Officer Credeur‟s report stated he heard Officer Cormier place the defendant under

arrest, but at trial, he testified he heard nothing that took place between Officer

Cormier and the defendant. Officer Credeur felt his memory of the event was

better at trial than at the time he wrote the report. He testified he “had to rush” the

report because his supervisor wanted it before he left for the day, and it was “done

quickly, because at the time [he] was already officially off of work.”

“Resisting an officer is the intentional interference with, opposition or

resistance to . . . a . . . lawful detention . . . when the offender knows or has reason

to know that the person arresting, detaining, seizing property, or serving process is

acting in his official capacity.” La.R.S. 14:108(A). “A law enforcement officer

may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing,

has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name,

address, and an explanation of his actions.” La.Code Crim.P. art. 215.1(A). A

“public place” may include private property when an individual, although located

on private property, is in an area where he has no expectation of privacy, is visible

13

to the public, or is “exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch[.]” State v.

Palmer, 09-44 (La. 7/1/09), 14 So.3d 304, 309 n.2 (citing Hester v. United States,

265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445 (1924)).

In State v. Kinard, 12-446 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/27/12), 105 So.3d 974, writ

denied, 12-2745 (La. 10/25/13), 124 So.3d 1090, the fifth circuit determined an

officer was justified in placing a suspect in handcuffs after he approached the

suspect‟s vehicle for obstructing traffic, and a gun fell from the vehicle. The court

noted the officer‟s right “to stop and interrogate those reasonably suspected of

engaging in criminal activity” as recognized by La.Code Crim.P. art. 215.1.

Kinard, 105 So.3d at 978. Also, the fifth circuit noted an officer‟s authorization

“to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect his safety and to maintain

the status quo[.]” Id. at 979.

Officer Cormier had learned of a brutal crime involving a black man

wearing a white shirt with a tan dog just before he, according to his testimony, saw

a tan dog in the street and traced it to a black man wearing a white t-shirt. Thus, he

was lawfully allowed to detain the defendant, who was visible to the public albeit

on private property, to determine whether he had committed the offense. Officer

Cormier could lawfully take the step of asking the defendant to restrain potentially

dangerous dogs to protect his safety. The defendant resisted that lawful detention

when he refused to cooperate with Officer Cormier‟s reasonable request. Officer

Cormier was in uniform, and easily identifiable as a police officer. Accordingly,

the testimony of Officers Cormier and Credeur establish all the elements of

resisting an officer.

The testimony of the defendant‟s other witnesses, however, contradicts the

officers‟ testimony. Based on the guilty verdict, the jury apparently accepted the

14

officers‟ testimony and rejected the testimony of the conflicting witnesses. The

jury made credibility determinations that this court will not set aside, and those

determinations established sufficient evidence to convict the defendant. These

assignments of error lack merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER THREE

The defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to consider the Rayne

City Ordinance Sec. 18-2, when the defendant‟s dogs were in his yard on private

property. The issue of whether the dogs ever left the defendant‟s yard is of no

moment. Even if the dogs were on private property in compliance with the

ordinance, the officers still saw a man in a public place who fit the description of

someone who had just committed a crime. He even had a dog that matched the

description of the dog with the suspect. Thus, the officers were authorized to

question the defendant regardless of whether he was in compliance with the Rayne

city ordinance pertaining to dogs.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER FOUR

The defendant contends the trial court failed to consider whether the officers

had probable cause to arrest him when he “was merely outside s[pea]king on the

phone watching his well trained dogs urinate and thus became the subject of a

violent tirade by Officer Joseph Cormier.” However, the defendant fit the

description of a crime suspect. He refused to cooperate by putting his dogs away

in the interest of officer safety when he was lawfully approached. He resisted a

lawful detention by someone he knew to be a police officer. As discussed above,

the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant. This assignment of error

lacks merit.

15

CONCLUSION

The trial court is directed to inform the defendant of the provisions of

La.Code Cr.P. art. 930.8 by sending appropriate written notice to the defendant

within ten days of the rendition of this opinion and to file written proof in the

record that he received the notice. The defendant‟s conviction is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

16