State of Louisiana v. Jameel D. Green

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

21-14 consolidated with 21-15

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JAMEEL D. GREEN

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CONCORDIA, NO. 17-4637/38 & 17-4824/25/26
HONORABLE KATHY A. JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHARON DARVILLE WILSON
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Van H. Kyzar, and Sharon Darville
Wilson, Judges.

CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED;
SENTENCE VACATED IN PART; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Ann Sheridan Siddall
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 1154
Vidalia, LA 71373
(318) 336-4267
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Hon. Bradley R. Burget
District Attorney - Concordia Parish
4001 Carter St., Suite 9
Vidalia, LA 71373
(318) 336-5526
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Austin L. Lipsey
McLemore Law Firm, LLC
200 Advocate Row, Suite B
Vidalia, LA 71373
(318) 336-9189
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Ravi G. Shah
Attorney At Law
816 N.Columbia
Covington, La 70433
(985) 888-1694
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Jameel D. Green

WILSON, Judge.

In these consolidated cases, Defendant, Jameel D. Green, was charged

by bills of information with various crimes related to possession and distribution of

methamphetamine. After a jury trial, Mr. Green was convicted of one count of

possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, a violation of La.R.S.

40:967(A)(1); one count of illegal possession of weapons along with a controlled

dangerous substance, a violation of La.R.S. 14:95(E); and three counts of

distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of La.R.S. 40:967(A)(1). Mr. Green

was sentenced to serve a total of thirty-nine years at hard labor on the five charges.

Mr. Green now appeals the judgment of the trial court, requesting that his conviction

and sentence be vacated, and the case remanded for new trial. For the following

reasons, we affirm the convictions, affirm the sentence for illegal possession of

weapons and controlled dangerous substances, and remand for resentencing on the

remaining sentences with instructions.

I.

ISSUES

We must decide:

(1) whether the trial court erred in sentencing Mr.
Green under the wrong statutory law as Act 281
enacted by the Louisiana Legislature and effective
as of August 1, 2017, applied;

(2) whether the sentence imposed was excessive and
violated Mr. Green’s constitutional right against
cruel and unusual punishment;

(3) whether Mr. Green was prejudiced by comments
made by the prosecution in closing arguments; and

(4) whether Mr. Green failed to receive a fair trial
because evidence seized by police was not
maintained properly.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 28, 2017, Concordia Parish Sheriff’s deputies executed

a traffic stop on Luke Hutchins and found him in possession of methamphetamines.

After a conversation with Lieutenant John Cowan, Mr. Hutchins agreed to be a

confidential informant (CI) in exchange for not being arrested. Mr. Hutchins

identified Mr. Green as a drug dealer who could supply methamphetamine, and he

was paired with undercover officer Chad Fuqua to make drug purchases. Mr.

Hutchins, accompanied by Officer Fuqua, made three methamphetamine purchases

from Mr. Green on November 15, 2017, November 20, 2017, and November 26,

2017. The first two purchases were made at the residence of Mr. Green, and the

final purchase took place at a local dollar store. After the third buy, Lieutenant

Cowan applied for and obtained a search warrant for Mr. Green’s home. On

November 29, 2017, Concordia Parish Sheriff’s deputies executed the search

warrant and recovered approximately twenty-four grams of methamphetamine, a .38

caliber pistol, a .22 caliber rifle, and $906 in cash all stashed behind the toilet in the

bathroom. Officers also seized a DVR home security system, and mail addressed to

Mr. Green. Mr. Green was formally charged on January 19, 2018, with the following

charges and case numbers subject to this appeal:

17-4637—La.R.S. 40.967(A)(1) Possession with Intent to
Distribute Schedule II CDS

17-4638—La.R.S. 14:95(E) Illegal Possession of a
weapon and CDS

17-4824—La.R.S. 40:967(A)(1) Distribution of CDS
Schedule II (Methamphetamine)

17-4825—La.R.S. 40:967(A)(1) Distribution of CDS
Schedule II (Methamphetamine)

2

17-4826—La.R.S. 40:967(A)(1) Distribution of CDS
Schedule II (Methamphetamine)
A jury trial took place on the 18th and 19th of June 2019 and the jury unanimously

returned a guilty verdict as to each count. Mr. Green filed a motion for new trial on

July 29, 2019, which was denied. On July 31, 2019, Mr. Green was sentenced as

follows:

17-4824—Seven years at hard labor, two years without
benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence

17-4825—Ten years at hard labor, two years without
benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence to
run consecutive to 17-4824

17-4826—Fourteen years at hard labor, two years without
benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence to
run consecutive to 17-4824 and 17-4825

17-4637—Seven years at hard labor to run concurrent to
17-4824,17-4825, 178-4826

17-4638—8 years at hard labor without benefit of
probation, parole, or suspension of sentence to run
concurrent to 17-4637.

Mr. Green was given credit for time served. A motion to reconsider sentence was

filed and a hearing was held September 4, 2019. The trial court denied the motion,

and Mr. Green now appeals.

III.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

ERRORS PATENT

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

for errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find that

there are two errors patent.

3

The first error concerns the advisement of the time limitation for filing

an application for post-conviction relief. Mr. Green was told by the trial court that

he had two years to apply for post-conviction relief. We find that the trial court

failed to properly advise Mr. Green of the time limitation for filing an application

for post-conviction relief. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 930.8

provides that a defendant has two years “after the conviction and sentence become

final” to seek post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to inform

Mr. Green of the provisions of article 930.8 by sending appropriate written notice to

him within ten (10) days of the rendition of this opinion and to file written proof that

Mr. Green received the notice in the record of the proceedings. 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. The second error is raised in Mr. Green’s first assignment of error and

is addressed below.

ILLEGAL SENTENCES

In his first assignment of error, Mr. Green contends that the trial court

erred in sentencing him under the wrong statutory law since Act 281 by the

Louisiana Legislature, effective August 1, 2017, applied. We agree. Mr. Green was

arrested and convicted of crimes taking place in November 2017, therefore, the

amended version of the statute applied. The trial court sentenced Mr. Green

believing that the proper sentencing range for his violations of La.R.S. 40:967 was

two to thirty-one years. However, effective August 1, 2017, La.R.S. 40:967(B)(1)

provides that the proper sentencing range in cases involving an aggregate weight of

less than twenty-eight grams is one to ten years. Consequently, the fourteen-year

sentence under docket number 17-4826 exceeds the maximum sentencing limit and

must be vacated and remanded for resentencing.

4

Additionally, each of the distribution sentences includes a two-year

exclusion of benefits. Louisiana Revised Statues 40:967(B)(1) does not authorize

the exclusion of benefits, and these exclusions are illegal. An appellate court may

correct an illegal sentence when the correction does not involve the exercise of

sentencing discretion. State v. Gregrich, 99-178 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99), 745

So.2d 694. Thus, the sentences must be amended to eliminate the exclusions.

Although the other sentences for violations of La.R.S. 40:967 are

within the sentencing range, as the record reflects that the trial court made its

sentencing decisions based upon an incorrect sentencing range of two to thirty-one

years, we choose to vacate all the sentences under this statute and remand for

resentencing. This court has stated, “‘[A] sentence founded on an incorrect view of

the law should usually be set aside.’ State v. Spruell, 403 So.2d 63,64 (La.1981).”

State in the Interest of D.B., 14-85 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/14), 141 So.3d 296,306-07.

In analyzing this issue, the second circuit observed:

In State v. Spruell, 403 So.2d 63 (La.1981), the defendant pled
guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and was
sentenced to five years in prison. The defendant appealed his sentence,
arguing, inter alia, that the trial court failed to utilize the correct penalty
provisions during sentencing. The record revealed that the court
imposed the sentence, cited the statute pertaining to distribution of
Schedule II narcotics, rather than a Schedule I narcotic, such as
marijuana. The court mistakenly believed that it was imposing the
minimum sentence allowable under the charged statute. However, the
correct sentencing range for the charged statute was zero to 10 years.
Id. The Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the sentence, stating:

In reality, the cited penal provision, R.S. 40:967(B)(1),
deals only with the intended distribution of Schedule II
narcotics, see R.S. 40:964, a classification not including
marijuana, the distribution of which carries no minimum
penalty and a maximum of ten rather than thirty years’
imprisonment. Though the sentence actually imposed fell
within the statutorily-prescribed range, the danger that
such a mistake of law might have affected the trial court’s
attempt at leniency appears significant. For this reason, a

5

sentence founded on an incorrect view of the law should
usually be set aside.

The trial court’s mistaken view of the statutorily
authorized penalty also resulted in its unknowing
imposition of a relatively stiff sentence rather than a
minimal one. The imposition of such an apparently severe
sentence requires record justification by the trial court,
whose responsibility it is to ensure that the sentence has a
sufficient informational basis to protect the accused’s right
of review on appeal. Such factual justification is especially
crucial where, as here, the accused’s guilty plea leaves no
other evidence of record which clearly illumines the trial
court’s sentencing choice.

Id. at 64-65 (internal citations omitted).

State v. Preston, 47,273, pp. 14-15 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/8/12), 103 So.3d

525, 533-34.

Although the second circuit distinguished Spruell because “nothing in

this record convinces us that the trial court intended to impose a lenient sentence for

this defendant[,]” it did not question Spruell’s reasoning. Id. at 535. In Mr. Green’s

case, the trial court incorrectly believed the sentencing range was two to thirty-one

years. Thus, the trial court gave Mr. Green sentences it believed to be in the lower

to middle range of possible sentences. However, under the correct sentencing

scheme, the trial court imposed two higher-range sentences (seven years), a

maximum sentence (ten years), and an illegally excessive sentence (fourteen years).

Prior to trial, the state expressed their desire for maximum sentences to

the court. In determining the sentence, the trial court went through each of the

factors provided in La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1. Although the trial court found that there

were no mitigating factors, it chose to impose sentences it believed to be on the lower

end of the sentencing range. It does not appear from the record that the trial court

intended to impose such severe sentences, and undoubtedly, the mistaken view of

6

the statutorily authorized penalty directly influenced the penalty received by Mr.

Green. Accordingly, the sentences in case numbers 17-4637, 17-4824, 17-4825, and

17-4826 are vacated and remanded for resentencing. This does not affect the

sentence for illegal possession of weapons and controlled dangerous substances and

the sentence imposed in 17-4638 is affirmed.

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES

In his second assignment of error, Mr. Green asserts that the trial court’s

order that some of his sentences be served consecutively created an excessive

sentencing scheme. This court recently address a similar argument in 2020:

In State v. James, 15-414, pp. 2-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/7/15), 175
So.3d 1176, 1178, writ denied, 15-2059 (La. 1/9/17), 208 So.3d 876,
and writ denied,15-2044 (La. 1/9/17), 214 So.3d 858, this court
reiterated the standard for reviewing excessive sentence claims:

[Louisiana Constitution Article] I, § 20 guarantees
that, “[n]o law shall subject any person to cruel or unusual
punishment.” To constitute an excessive sentence, the
reviewing court must find the penalty so grossly
disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock
our sense of justice or that the sentence makes no
measurable contribution to acceptable penal goals and is,
therefore, nothing more than a needless imposition of pain
and suffering. The trial court has wide discretion in the
imposition of sentence within the statutory limits and such
sentence shall not be set aside as excessive absent a
manifest abuse of discretion. The relevant question is
whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing
discretion, not whether another sentence might have been
more appropriate.

State v. Barling, 00-1241, 00-1591, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01), 779
So.2d 1035, 1042, writ denied, 01-838 (La. 2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331
(citations omitted).

....

Even though a penalty falls within the statutory sentencing range,
it may still be unconstitutionally excessive:

7

In deciding whether a sentence is shocking or makes
no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals, an
appellate court may consider several factors including the
nature of the offense, the circumstances of the offender,
the legislative purpose behind the punishment and a
comparison of the sentences imposed for similar crimes.
While a comparison of sentences imposed for similar
crimes may provide some insight, “it is well settled that
sentences must be individualized to the particular offender
and to the particular offense committed.” Additionally, it
is within the purview of the trial court to particularize the
sentence because the trial judge “remains in the best
position to assess the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances presented by each case.”

State v. Smith, 02-719, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/03), 846 So.2d 786,
789, writ denied, 03-562 (La. 5/30/03), 845 So.2d 1061 (citations
omitted). “[T]he trial judge need not articulate every aggravating and
mitigating circumstance outlined in art. 894.1[;] the record must reflect
that he adequately considered these guidelines in particularizing the
sentence to the defendant.” State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688, 698
(La.1983) (citing State v. Ray, 423 So.2d 1116 (La.1982); State v.
Keeney, 422 So.2d 1144 (La.1982); State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105
(La.1982)). “[M]aximum sentences are reserved for cases involving the
most serious violations of the charged offense and for the worst kind of
offender.” State v. Quebedeaux, 424 So.2d 1009, 1014 (La.1982)
(citing State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049 (La.1981)). “The appellate court
shall not set aside a sentence for excessiveness if the record supports
the sentence imposed.” La.Code Crim.P. art. 881.4(D).

In his first assignment of error, Defendant argues that
consecutive nine-year sentences are excessive considering he sold a
small amount of methamphetamine to a confidential informant who is
also his friend. In his second assignment of error, Defendant argues that
his sentence is excessive because the trial court failed to individualize
his sentences as required by La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1. Defendant
argues these assignments together and asserts that the aggregate
eighteen-year sentence is excessive considering all mitigating factors
and ameliorative changes. He asks that this court vacate the trial court’s
order of consecutive sentences and remand the case for the imposition
of lesser concurrent sentences.

Defendant was convicted of two counts of distribution of
methamphetamine, an offense punishable by a minimum sentence of
two years imprisonment and a maximum sentence of thirty years
imprisonment, in addition to a maximum fine of fifty thousand dollars.
See La.R.S. 40:967(B)(1)(eff. 8/15/08-7/31/17). Defendant was
sentenced within the statutory range, his sentence being nine years on

8

each count, court costs, and one hundred and fifty dollars for the PSI
preparation.

The general rule for concurrent versus consecutive sentences is
set forth in La.Code Crim.P. art. 883:

If the defendant is convicted of two or more
offenses based on the same act or transaction, or
constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms
of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the
court expressly directs that some or all be served
consecutively. Other sentences of imprisonment shall be
served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that
some or all of them be served concurrently. In the case of
the concurrent sentence, the judge shall specify, and the
court minutes shall reflect, the date from which the
sentences are to run concurrently.

Article 1, § 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits excessive
or unusual punishment. The factual situation in this case fits what
Article 1, § 20 is designed to prevent. These two small transactions
occurring only two days apart and involving small amounts of
methamphetamine constitute parts of a common scheme. Louisiana
Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 883 directs that the terms of
imprisonment shall be concurrent unless the court expressly directs that
they be served consecutively.

In support of his request that the consecutive sentences should be
vacated, Defendant cites State v. Nixon, 51,319 (La.App. 2 Cir.
5/19/17), 222 So.3d 123, writ denied, 17-966 (La. 4/27/18), 239 So.3d
836, wherein the Second Circuit found that the consecutive nature of
three, twenty-year sentences for three counts of distribution of a small
amount of controlled dangerous substance was excessive. In Nixon, the
defendant was convicted of two counts of distribution of marijuana and
one count of distribution of cocaine to a confidential informant for a
combined sum of less than $100; the trial court imposed twenty-year
sentences on each count to run consecutively -- an aggregate sentence
of sixty years, and a de facto life sentence for the forty-two-year-old
defendant. The second circuit held that, although the sentences were not
unconstitutionally excessive, the trial court’s order that the sentences
imposed be served consecutively was unconstitutionally excessive. The
second circuit reasoned that the sixty-year sentence was
disproportionate to the offenses and imposed a purposeless and
needless infliction of pain and suffering.

It is undisputed that on May 15, 2018, and May 17, 2018,
Defendant sold methamphetamine to his friend and confidential
informant, Jason Kittlin. Although the substance was not weighed by
the North Louisiana Crime Lab, the current record indicates that the

9

informant purchased methamphetamine from Defendant for fifty-five
dollars on May 15th and no more than one hundred dollars on May
17th.

....

Also pertinent to our decision, this court recognizes the
ameliorative changes that became effective approximately two months
after Defendant committed the offenses herein. As noted in State v.
McGowan, 17-623, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/17), 258 So.3d 609, 616,
“Though not required to do so, the trial court is permitted to consider
the ameliorative changes enacted by the 2017 amendment to the penalty
provision in keeping with the spirit of the reforms articulated.” These
2017 changes reduced the sentencing for distribution of
methamphetamine sold in certain quantities. A review of those changes
is instructive.

Effective August 1, 2017, La.R.S. 40:967 was amended and the
sentence for distribution of methamphetamine became dependent on
the weight of the substance. The new law provides for sentences from
one to ten years imprisonment and a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars
when the aggregate weight of the controlled substance is less than
twenty-eight grams, and a sentence of one to twenty years and a fine of
up to fifty thousand dollars when the aggregate weight is more than
twenty-eight grams. This is a significant change from the previous
language, which sentenced all offenders, regardless of the substance’s
weight, to not less than two or more than thirty years imprisonment and
a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars.

....

We recognize that the trial court has discretion in sentencing and
under La.Code Crim.P. art. 883. However, even the trial court
recognized the need and possibility for rehabilitation of Defendant
when it commented that he be housed in a facility that offers addictive
disorder programs. Thus, following the guidance of Nixon, 222 So.3d
123, and considering the time frame of the occurrences, La. Code
Crim.P. art. 883, 2017 La. Acts No. 281, and the findings supporting
the reformation of La.R.S. 40:967, we find that the imposition of
consecutive sentences in this case “is grossly disproportionate to the
severity of the crime as to shock our sense of justice” and “makes no
measurable contribution to acceptable penal goals[.]” Barling, 779
So.2d at 1042.

....

We find merit in Defendant’s assertion that the consecutive
nature of his sentences is excessive; thus, we vacate the sentences in

10

part and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to impose
concurrent sentences.
State v. Lee, 20-80, pp. 3-11 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/18/20), 305 So.3d 1048, 1050-54

(footnotes omitted). Like the defendant in Lee, Mr. Green was convicted for three

small sales of methamphetamine to a CI over a short period of time. The offenses

constituted parts of a common scheme or plan and ordinarily would run concurrently

to one another. Unlike the defendant in Lee, who had an extensive record, Mr. Green

had no prior record. The reasoning of this court in Lee, would suggest that the

consecutive nature of the sentences was excessive. However, given that the

sentences for the drug offenses have been vacated and remanded for resentencing,

we find that this issue is rendered moot.

UNDUE PREJUDICE

In his third assignment of error, Mr. Green argues that the state created

undue prejudice during its closing argument by appealing to jurors’ “common

sense.” Particularly, Mr. Green refers to the following language:

Guys, when we started this, y’all remember back to Mr. Burget. He kind
of give [sic] y’all and the judge give [sic] y’all a definition of reasonable
doubt. And that was, basically, good judgment and common sense. For
y’all not to find Mr. Green guilty of distributing meth and on the three
different counts and also the possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, along with the firearm charge, you just wouldn’t be
using your common sense and good judgment. It makes no sense.”

Although Mr. Green takes issue with this language on appeal, he did not lodge a

contemporaneous objection, therefore, he failed to preserve the issue for appeal.

La.Code Crim.P. art 841. In fact, Mr. Green’s counsel responded with its own

references to “common sense.” Thus, this assignment lacks merit.

EVIDENCE IMPROPERLY MAINTAINED

11

In his final assignment of error, Mr. Green contends that his trial was

unfair because the evidence was not properly maintained. Mr. Green does not cite

any legal provisions or jurisprudence, but he asks for a new trial. In his written

motion for new trial, he made only a general citation to La.Code Crim.P. art. 851.

The supreme court has explained:

Under La.C.Cr.P. 851, newly discovered evidence must first be
determined to be “material.” Evidence is material only if it is
reasonably probable that the result of the proceeding would have been
different had the evidence been disclosed. State v. Marshall, 94-0461,
p. 16 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 819, 826 (citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)). “A
reasonable probability is one that is sufficient to undermine confidence
in the outcome” of the trial. Marshall, 94-0461, p. 16, 660 So.2d at 826.
A district court should ascertain on a motion for new trial “whether
there is new material fit for a new jury’s judgment. The only issue is
whether the result will probably be different.” State v. Watts, 00-0602,
p. 9 (La. 1/14/03), 835 So.2d 441, 449. The decision of whether to grant
or deny a motion for new trial is within the trial judge’s sound
discretion. State v. Brisban, 00-3437 (La. 2/26/02), 809 So.2d 923.

State v. Holliday, 17-1921, pp. 78-79 (La. 1/29/20), __ So.3d __, cert. denied, __

U.S. __, 141 S.Ct. 1271 (2021).

Mr. Green first points to the fact that the evidence custodian over his

case, Major James Boren, was arrested in 2020 and is currently pending trial for

felony theft, misdemeanor theft, and theft of a firearm. Mr. Green then discusses the

$906 in cash which was seized from Mr. Green’s home during the execution of the

search warrant. During the trial there was a discrepancy regarding the

denominations of the cash in the evidence envelope not matching the evidence

logging sheet. The state explained this discrepancy to the jury as a mistake and

further argued that the $906 was not necessary to its case. Mr. Green now insinuates

that due to Major Boren’s arrest, there may have been evidence tampering.

12

However, Mr. Green does not point to any evidence of evidence tampering nor is

there any contained in the record.

Mr. Green also argues that a DVR security system seized by police

worked before it was seized, the state could not get it to work, and the security

footage on the DVR would have shown he was innocent. This was previously argued

by Mr. Green in his written motion for new trial and at the hearing where the

following colloquy took place:

MR. WILLIAMS [Defense Counsel]:

Well, Your Honor, it was -- our understanding was at first the District
Attorney’s office couldn’t get in the video because they’re saying it was
locked or they needed a pass code to get in. All right. And then after
that when they couldn’t pull anything off of it -- during our trial, yes,
Your Honor, they did make it physically available to us. So from a
physical standpoint it’s not new evidence because it was made available
prior to trial. Without being able to view whatever was on the
surveillance video, that -- whatever is on the video could be considered
new evidence. We don’t know what’s on the video. So I can’t go as far
as saying the video is not new evidence because it’s never been viewed.
That’s what we’re arguing. Without actually being able to view the
surveillance tapes, Your Honor, there is possible new evidence out
there that could turn one way or another for Mr. Green. So that’s our
position as far as why we consider the surveillance video evidence that
-- without being -- evidence that was vital to Mr. Green's defense.

MR. BURGET[Prosecutor]:

If I could interject, Your Honor, the issue came up at a pre-trial
conference where Mr. Green indicated to Mr. Williams and I that this
video existed and it could be something exculpatory. It’s my position it
would be inculpatory, not exculpatory. We made all those efforts to try
to make that video play. We thought it was a password issue. We got
that from law enforcement. Once our technician from the DA’s office
looked at it, it was a defective device. I mean, he removed the hard drive
from the device to try to get this to play on some other device and it’s
like Mr. Lipsey said, not a very common device. And we tried to find
one in the community and searched for one and could not find one. We
made all that information available to Mr. Williams. So what’s on the
video -- if it was recorded, we don’t even know. So we just don’t know.
And there haven’t been any dilatory efforts by the State or by Mr.
Williams. This was all attempted to get accomplished to find out what
was on the video or even when it was recorded. Because it was my

13

understanding from the officers and their testimony that there was a
television set up in his house and it was showing what was going on the
outside of his house of the video, but whether or not that was recorded
on the DVR, we don’t know. We do not know. It would be more of a
post-conviction release [sic] matter at this particular junction and not a
new evidence because that evidence was made available to Mr. Green.
And Mr. Green gave that information (coughing - inaudible) video and
that’s what we did. We wanted to do our due diligence. If it was
something exculpatory, we wanted to find that out prior to trial.

THE COURT:

All right. . . . On the Motion for a New Trial based on the video,
I find that the video was made available to Mr. Green and I deny the
Motion for New Trial on that basis.

MR. BURGET:

Your Honor, I just want to clarify, it’s not actually a video. It’s just a
DVR that may have recorded something or it may not have. It’s not
actually a disc or some kind of device like that. It’s actually a DVR.

Mr. Green argues that the DVR was working before it was seized, but

he offers no evidence of such fact. Mr. Green was afforded an opportunity to try to

get the DVR to work prior to trial and Mr. Green’s team was unsuccessful in

accessing the recording if any such recording exists on the machine. In light of

Holliday, we find that Mr. Green has failed to demonstrate that the DVR system

contains any material evidence. It is not even clear that it contains any evidence at

all since nobody has been able to recover any recorded footage from it. Therefore,

we are unable to conclude the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion

for new trial. For the reasons discussed, this assignment lacks merit.

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Green’s convictions and the sentence for

illegal possession of weapons and controlled dangerous substances are affirmed.

14

The sentences for distribution of methamphetamine and the sentence for possession

of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute are vacated and remanded for

resentencing. Additionally, the trial court is directed to inform Mr. Green of the

provisions of article 930.8 by sending appropriate written notice to him within ten

(10) days of the rendition of this opinion and to file written proof that Mr. Green

received the notice in the record of the proceedings.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED IN PART;
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

15