This Decision is not final until expiration of the fourteen day rehearing period.
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA. NO. 10-1116, DIVISION " I" . HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER, JUDGE PRESIDING.
PAUL D. CONNICK, JR., DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Twenty-Fourth Judicial District, TERRY M. BOUDREAUX, GAIL D. SCHLOSSER, DOUGLAS W. FREESE, THOMAS S. BLOCK, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, Gretna, Louisiana, COUNSEL FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.
MARGARET S. SOLLARS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Thibodaux, Louisiana, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Robert M. Murphy, and Hans J. Liljeberg.
HANS J. LILJEBERG, J.
[14-24 La.App. 5 Cir. 2] Defendant, Roger Chairs, a/k/a " Lil Rog," appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm, finding that defendant's motion for new trial was untimely.
This is defendant's second appeal. On September 23, 2011, defendant was convicted of second degree murder in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 (count two), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (count three), and obstruction of justice in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1 (count four). Defendant was sentenced on October 12, 2011.
On December 27, 2012, this Court affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences, with the exception of his sentence on count three, which was vacated as illegally excessive. See State v. Chairs, 12-363, p. 30 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/12), 106 So.3d 1232, 1251, [14-24 La.App. 5 Cir. 3] writ denied, 13-0306 (La. 6/21/13), 118 So.3d 413. This Court remanded the matter for resentencing, and having found no ruling from the trial court on defendant's motion to reconsider sentence, also remanded for a ruling thereupon. Id.
On February 21, 2013, defendant filed a motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. In this motion, he alleged that after his conviction, he learned that the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office was investigating Detective Brett Beavers, the lead detective in this case, for matters concerning his honesty and integrity. On account of Detective Beavers' inculpatory testimony at defendant's trial, defendant argued that the detective's credibility was critical. For this reason, defendant argued he was entitled to a new trial.
A hearing was held on May 20, 2013, at which the trial court denied both defendant's motion for new trial and his motion to reconsider sentence. Then, in ...