Appealed from the Caddo Parish Juvenile Court Parish of
Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 157834, Honorable Erwin Paul
Young, III, Judge.
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT By: Peggy J. Sullivan, Counsel
for Appellant, C.B.
E. STEWART, SR. District Attorney, DAVID M. NEWELL TOMMY J.
JOHNSON Assistant District Attorneys, Counsel for Appellee.
WILLIAMS, STONE, and MCCALLUM, JJ.
defendant, C.B.,  was adjudicated delinquent on one count of
aggravated battery in violation of La. R.S. 14:34 and two
counts of aggravated assault with a firearm in violation of
La. R.S. 14:37.4. C.B. was ordered to serve one year in a
non-secure program for aggravated battery and one year in a
non-secure program for each count of aggravated assault with
a firearm. The trial court ordered the dispositions for
aggravated assault with a firearm to run concurrently with
one another and consecutively with the disposition for
aggravated battery. On appeal, C.B. argues there was
insufficient evidence to adjudicate him as a delinquent and
that his dispositions are excessive.  For the following reasons,
we affirm C.B.'s adjudications and dispositions.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 25, 2017, 15 year-old C.B. was involved in a physical
altercation with K.J. C.B. was arrested and subsequently
charged with one count of aggravated battery in violation of
La. R.S. 14:34 and two counts of aggravated assault with a
firearm in violation of La. R.S. 14:37.4. Thereafter, C.B.
was adjudicated delinquent on all counts. On January 22,
2018, the trial court ordered C.B. be committed to the
Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice ("OJJ") to
serve one year for aggravated battery and one year each for
the two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm. The
trial court ordered the dispositions for aggravated assault
with a firearm run concurrently with each other and
consecutively with the disposition for aggravated battery. On
appeal, C.B. argues the evidence was insufficient to prove he
committed an aggravated battery or aggravated assault with a
firearm. C.B. also argues the dispositions imposed are harsh
standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the
evidence claim under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), is whether, after
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. See also State v. Carter, 42, 894 (La.App. 2
Cir. 1/09/08), 974 So.2d 181, writ denied, 08-0499
(La. 11/14/08), 996 So.2d 1086. This standard, now
legislatively embodied in La.C.Cr.P. art. 821, does not
provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its
own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder.
State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So.2d
517; State v. Dotie, 43, 819 (La.App. 2
Cir. 1/14/09), 1 So.3d 833, 837, writ denied,
2009-0310 (La. 11/6/09), 21 So.3d 297.
there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the
resolution of which depends upon a determination of the
credibility of the witnesses, the matter is one of the weight
of the evidence, not its sufficiency. State v.
Speed, 43, 786 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/14/09), 2 So.3d 582,
writ denied, 09-0372 (La. 11/6/09), 21 So.3d 299. In
the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable
conflict with physical evidence, one witness's testimony,
if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient support for a
requisite factual conclusion. State v. Gullette, 43,
032 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/13/08), 975 So.2d 753. The appellate
court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh
evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95),
661 So.2d 442. Not only does the standard of review in
Jackson, supra, apply to juvenile
delinquency adjudicatory hearings, but our state constitution
mandates that we determine, after reviewing the record
evidence, whether the juvenile court was clearly wrong in its
fact findings. Id.
order for the court to adjudicate a child delinquent, the
state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child
committed a delinquent act alleged in the petition. La. Ch.
C. art. 883. In a juvenile case, the reviewing court is
constitutionally compelled to review both facts and law. La.
Const. art. V, § 10(A) and (B). However, the reviewing
court must recognize that the juvenile judge observed the
conduct and demeanor of the witnesses and was in the best
position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence.
State In Interest of D.R., 50, 594 (La.App. 2 Cir.
2/24/16), 188 So.3d 1116, 1120. Therefore, this Court grants
great deference to the juvenile court's factual findings
and credibility determinations and assessment of the weight
of particular testimony. Id.
battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon the
person of another. La. R.S. 14:33. Aggravated battery is a
battery committed with a dangerous weapon. La. R.S. 14:34. A
"dangerous weapon" includes any
"instrumentality, which, in the manner used, is
calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily
harm." La. R.S. 14:2(A)(3). As a matter of law, a ...