FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 518-709,
SECTION "H" Honorable Camille Buras, Judge.
A. Cannizzaro, Jr. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PARISH OF ORLEANS Scott
G. Vincent ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PARISH OF ORLEANS,
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/STATE OF LOUISIANA.
Herrle-Castillo LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT P. O. COUNSEL FOR
composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Madeleine M. Landrieu,
Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano.
MADELEINE M. LANDRIEU JUDGE.
defendant, Edward N. Green, appeals his convictions of three
counts of armed robbery with a firearm and the sentences
imposed by the trial court. For the reasons that follow, we
January 6, 2014, the State charged Mr. Green with the armed
robbery with a firearm of three individuals, a violation of
La. R.S. 14:64.3. At his arraignment Mr. Green pled not
guilty. The trial court denied Mr. Green's motion to
suppress the evidence and found probable cause. The case was
tried before a jury on January 21 -22, 2015. The jury
returned a unanimous verdict of guilty on all counts. Mr.
Green filed motions for new trial and for post-verdict
judgment of acquittal, which were denied. On June 26, 2015,
the court sentenced Mr. Green to twenty years at hard labor
on each of the three counts, plus an additional five years on
each count for the use of a firearm, for a total of
twenty-five years on each count, without benefit of
probation, parole or suspension of sentence, with credit for
time served, and ordered that the sentences be served
Green appeals his conviction and sentences, asserting three
assignments of error:
(1) The evidence is insufficient to support the conviction;
(2)The trial court erred by denying the defendant's
motion in limine to exclude from evidence two guns
retrieved in a search of the defendant's residence; and
(3)The sentences imposed are excessive.
early morning hours of July 5, 2013, the three victims:
Matthew Merris (Matthew), Daniel Dilzell (Daniel) and Cecily
Fogarty (Cecily), were at Cecily's house on Coliseum
Street when they were robbed at gunpoint.
testified that as he and Matthew were sitting and talking on
the back porch of the house, he felt someone come up behind
him. He turned and saw a light brown-skinned male, who had
the lower portion of face covered with a shirt or bandana,
standing in the porch doorway, pointing a gun in his face.
Daniel recalled that the porch was well-lit the night of the
testified that when he saw the man enter the porch, he
initially did not think anything was amiss because he knew
that another friend was supposed to stop by the Coliseum
Street residence. However, as the man stepped into the light,
Matthew noticed his dreadlocks and the Rasta-type hat he
wore, and saw that he was wearing a mask and pointing a gun
at them. The intruder demanded their money and cell phones.
At that point, Daniel ran inside the house to alert Cecily
and call the police. The robber ordered Matthew to get on the
floor, and, as he did, Cecily came out onto the porch to see
what was going on. The robber ordered Cecily back into the
house and again demanded the money and the cell phones, which
were sitting on a table on the porch. After taking the phones
and money from Matthew, the intruder left. Matthew waited
until he was sure the intruder was gone before he got up and
ran back into the house.
testified that she was inside her house at about 3:15 a.m.
when she heard a loud commotion on the back porch. Moments
later, Daniel ran into the house; he was frantic. She knew
Matthew had been with Daniel on the back porch, so she
decided to investigate. When she opened the door leading onto
the porch, she saw Matthew crouched underneath the porch
table. She then saw the intruder with the lower part of his
face covered, pointing a gun at her. The robber put the gun
to her head and ordered her back into the house. Cecily went
back inside and called 911. She told the dispatcher that the
robber was wearing a black hat and described the gun the
robber was using as being a "gunmetal" color.
Orleans Police Department Detective Michael DiMarco
investigated the armed robbery. Det. DiMarco contacted
Matthew and obtained a physical description of the robber.
Next, he spoke with Cecily, who gave a similar description.
In the course of the investigation, the detective learned
that iPhones belonging to Matthew, Daniel and Cecily, as well
as $30.00 in cash, had been stolen during the robbery.
Matthew asked the detective whether he should cancel his
phone service. Det. DiMarco said no, telling Matthew to keep
his phone service active because the police might be able to
trace any calls made by the assailant. Thereafter, Matthew
obtained his phone records and provided Det. DiMarco with a
list of the phone numbers that had been called. Det. DiMarco
singled out three calls that had not been made by Matthew.
His investigation of the phone numbers to which these three
calls had been placed led him to develop the defendant as a
DiMarco searched the police database for the defendant's
name and obtained a picture of the defendant. Thereafter, he
located the defendant's address and obtained a search
warrant for that location. Accompanied by other officers,
Det. DiMarco executed the search warrant. The defendant's
grandmother answered the door and directed the police to the
defendant's bedroom. Det. DiMarco confiscated three cell
phones, which belonged to the three victims of this armed
robbery. The detective also recovered a black .380 Bersa
semi-automatic handgun from atop a chest of drawers in the
defendant's bedroom, a chrome and black BB gun, a black
Rastafarian-style hat and a bank statement bearing the
defendant's name. Shortly thereafter, Det. DiMarco presented
photo lineups to Matthew and Cecily, both of whom identified
the defendant as the robber. Based upon their identifications,
Det. DiMarco obtained a warrant for Mr. Green's arrest.
Officer Harold Nunnery arrested Mr. Green on November 6,
2013. Matthew and Cecily identified the defendant at trial as
the person who had robbed them.
review for errors patent on the face of the record reveals
OF THE EVIDENCE
first assignment of error, Mr. Green argues that the evidence
presented at trial was insufficient to ...