FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF
VERMILION, NO. 60085-R HONORABLE LAURIE A. HULIN, DISTRICT
A. Stutes District Attorney COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of
P. Hamilton, Jr. Assistant District Attorney COUNSEL FOR
APPELLEE: State of Louisiana
J. Sullivan Louisiana Appellate Project COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Robert Sinegal
composed of Marc T. Amy, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Phyllis
M. Keaty, Judges.
T. AMY JUDGE .
probation and parole agents, as well as officers, seized
evidence following their execution of a parole warrant, the
State charged the defendant with creation of a clandestine
laboratory and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
A jury convicted the defendant as charged. The trial court
sentenced the defendant to five years at hard labor for the
creation of a clandestine laboratory charge and fifteen years
for the possession of a firearm charge, with the sentences to
run concurrently. The defendant appeals. For the following
reasons, we affirm with instructions.
and Procedural Background
September 25, 2015, agents with the Louisiana Department of
Corrections, Office of Probation and Parole, as well as
officers from the Kaplan Police Department and members of the
canine unit, arrived at a residence to execute a parole
warrant on Robert Sinegal. After the officers located him and
collected evidence inside the residence, the State charged
the defendant, Robert Sinegal, with creation of a clandestine
laboratory, a violation of La.R.S. 40:983(A), and possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon, a violation of La.R.S.
14:95.1. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the
evidence, arguing that the search was unreasonable because it
was performed without a warrant. The trial court denied the
motion to suppress, and the matter proceeded to trial by
trial, Kelly Hardy, a probation and parole officer, testified
that the officers went to that particular residence because
Virgie Lemaire, Assistant Chief of the Kaplan Police
Department, had received information that the defendant was
staying there. According to Agent Hardy, the parole warrant
had been issued "based on the activity report that [the
defendant] was no longer residing at his listed address"
and "had not reported for the last two months."
Agent Hardy further explained that the reason there were
"so many" to execute the warrant was "because
of [the defendant]'s escape history and the information .
. . received that he was in possession of a weapon."
arriving at the residence, Agent Hardy explained that they
"were knocking, yelling, [and] ordering [the defendant]
to come out." Agent Hardy stated that a woman, who was
identified as Danielle Willis,  eventually exited the residence.
Assistant Chief Lemaire testified that after she notified Ms.
Willis of her rights, Ms. Willis confirmed that the defendant
was in the residence. Agent Hardy stated that the officers
continued to call for the defendant to come out and
ultimately entered the residence because the defendant did
not exit. After failing to locate the defendant on the first
floor, Agent Hardy testified that she proceeded to the second
Agent Hardy explained that "there was an alcove with a
window" and that there were clothes hanging on a rod in
the alcove. Agent Hardy then described the following sequence
So I un-holstered my weapon for my safety and started moving
the clothes. Actually, I started taking them off at some
point and just throwing them down. And when I got about
halfway, I saw a foot with a flip-flop. I backed up and I
started yelling for [the defendant] to get out, put his hands
up ... .
At that point, where he was sitting, he was crouched up, on
top of [a] chest. ... He turned around and opened the window
and immediately ran up, onto the roof. . . .
. . . .
So I showed him I had the parole warrant. I told him to come
down. He eventually slipped down, off of the roof, to me and
[Assistant Chief Lemaire]. . . .
While we were holding him, he was searched. I don't
remember exactly who searched him. But as I was standing
there, they handed me a glass pipe which is normally used for
smoking . . . synthetic drugs, . . . crack cocaine, . . .
meth[amphetamine], . . . marijuana.
Hardy clarified: "Whoever was searching [the defendant]
reached in [the defendant's] pocket and, from the pocket,
handed me the glass pipe."
Agent Hardy explained that they placed the defendant in one
of the police units and then "received information that
there was [sic] other things inside the residence." Upon
reentering the residence, Agent Hardy explained that she
returned upstairs to where she had earlier found the
defendant and "located some . . . white powdery reside
[sic] on the carpet" and "some white coffee filters
on a table[.]" Agent Kylie Sands testified that she also
searched the second floor, where she "saw a white
powdery substance in the carpet, one plate" with "a
white powdery substance residue in it, and a metal strainer,
a coffee cup with white powdery substance residue in it as
trial, Amanda Hebert, a forensic chemist in the Acadiana
Crime Lab's drug chemistry section, testified that she
analyzed the abovementioned evidence. In particular, Ms.
Hebert said that the glass pipe "was determined to be
drug paraphernalia." Regarding the coffee filters and
metal filter/strainer submitted as evidence, Ms. Hebert
stated that she has seen such items used in clandestine
laboratories. Additionally, Ms. Hebert explained that after
testing the coffee cup, "the result was
methamphetamine." Ms. Hebert explained that she
"also identified methamphetamine on the white
powder" and that it was "methamphetamine with a net
weight of 0.24 grams." Ms. Hebert answered affirmatively
when asked whether "methamphetamine would be the
product, if someone would create a lab[.]"
group of agents and officers also searched the first floor of
the residence, where Agent Melissa Bares stated that she
removed the cushions from a sofa. Agent Alan Carpenter
explained that the sofa contained a bed and that when he and
Agent Hardy "went to grab the rail of the bed[, ]"
he "looked over, inside of it" and "saw the
pistol grip of a semiautomatic weapon." Agent Hardy
testified similarly that when she and Agent Carpenter
"grabbed the railing to pull the bedding out, there was
a gun located on the floor." Sean Boneski, a lieutenant
detective with the Kaplan Police Department, testified that
he collected the items that were found by the officers,
including the weapon. Detective Boneski explained that a
shirt "was found by" the weapon and that "Ms.
Willis . . . said that that was [the defendant's]
Sergeant William Seaux of the Kaplan Police Department
explained that he and Agent Hardy transported the defendant
to the Kaplan Police Department and then to the Vermilion
Parish Sheriffs Office, where the sheriffs deputy searched
the defendant. Agent Hardy and Sergeant Seaux testified that
they observed the deputy search the defendant and pull a
bullet out of the defendant's pocket. Sergeant Seaux
identified Deputy Trey D'Augereau as the deputy who had
retrieved the bullet from the defendant's pocket. Deputy
D'Augereau testified that on the date in question, he was
employed as a corrections officer at the jail. In that
capacity, he stated that he did not remember searching the
defendant but recalled retrieving a bullet from "[t]he
back pocket." Phillip Stoute, a forensic chemist in the
Acadiana Crime Lab's physical evidence section, testified
that the officers submitted the weapon and the bullet to the
laboratory for analysis. Mr. Stoute explained that the weapon
and the bullet are the same caliber.
the jury returned a verdict of guilty of creation of a
clandestine laboratory and guilty of unlawful possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced the
defendant to serve five years at hard labor for the creation
of a clandestine laboratory conviction, and the trial court
sentenced the defendant to "[f]ifteen years to be served
without benefit, to run concurrent with count one." The
defendant appeals his conviction, asserting as error that:
I. The Trial Court erred in denying the Motion to Suppress
Evidence filed by the defendant in this matter.
II. The evidence adduced at trial was not sufficient to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] was guilty of
the creation of a clandestine laboratory or the possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon.
accordance with La.Code CrimP. art. 920, all appeals are
reviewed for errors patent. An error patent is one which is
"discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and
proceedings and without inspection of the evidence."
La.Code CrimP. art. 920(2).
review, we note errors with regard to the sentences as
reflected in the minutes of the sentencing hearing and the
commitment order. Namely, the minutes and the commitment
order indicate that the sentences are to run concurrent with
each other and with any other sentence the defendant may be
serving. However, the transcript of the sentencing hearing
instead reveals that the trial court ordered that the
defendant's sentences were to run concurrent to each
other only. If there is a conflict between the minutes
and the transcript, the transcript prevails. State
v. Wommack, 00-137 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/7/00), 770
So.2d 365, writ denied, 00-2051 (La. 9/21/01), 797
So.2d 62. Accordingly, we instruct the trial court to correct
the minutes and the commitment order to reflect that the
sentences were only ordered to run concurrently with each
other, not with any other sentence the defendant may be