FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF
CALCASIEU, NO. 26727-13 HONORABLE DAVID A. RITCHIE, DISTRICT
F. DeRosier District Attorney Fourteenth Judicial District
Shelley A. Deville Ross Murray, Assistant District Attorneys
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana.
M. Ikerd, Louisiana Appellate Project, COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Devonte Len Roberts.
composed of John D. Saunders, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Van
H. Kyzar, Judges.
ELIZABETH A. PICKETT JUDGE.
December 12, 2013, the defendant, Devonte Len Roberts, was
charged by bill of information with armed robbery, in
violation of La.R.S. 14:64; armed robbery with a firearm, in
violation of La.R.S. 14:64.3; aggravated assault upon a peace
officer with a firearm, in violation of La.R.S. 14:37.2;
attempted armed robbery, in violation of La.R.S. 14:64;
attempted armed robbery with a firearm, in violation of
La.R.S. 14:64.3; and aggravated assault with a firearm, in
violation of La.R.S. 14:37.4. All six counts arose out of a
September 26, 2013 robbery of a Wing Stop restaurant.
to beginning the trial on January 29, 2018, the state filed
an amended bill of information charging the defendant with
one count of armed robbery with a firearm, in violation of
La.R.S. 14:64 and 14:64.3; one count of aggravated assault
upon a peace officer with a firearm, in violation of La.R.S.
14:37.2; one count of attempted armed robbery with a firearm,
in violation of La.R.S. 14:27, 14:64, and 14:64.3; and four
counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, in violation of
a two-day trial, the defendant was unanimously found guilty
as charged on all counts except count two, where a ten-two
jury found the defendant guilty of the responsive verdict of
attempted aggravated assault upon a peace officer in
violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:37.2.
April 18, 2018, the defendant was sentenced to serve ten
years at hard labor on each count of aggravated assault with
a firearm; five years at hard labor on the attempted
aggravated assault on a peace officer; and thirty years at
hard labor for both the armed robbery with a firearm and the
attempted armed robbery with a firearm; all of the
defendant's sentences were ordered to run concurrently to
defendant now appeals his convictions and sentences, alleging
a single assignment of error, namely, the state failed to
sufficiently prove he was the individual who robbed the Wing
accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are
reviewed by the court for errors patent on the face of the
record. After reviewing the record, we find there is an error
patent concerning two of the defendant's sentences. The
trial court imposed indeterminate sentences for the
defendant's convictions of armed robbery with the use of
a firearm and attempted armed robbery with the use of a
Revised Statutes 14:64 provides a sentence of ten to
ninety-nine years without the benefit of parole, probation,
or suspension of sentence. Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:64.3
requires the imposition of an additional five years at hard
labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension
of sentence to be served consecutively to the sentence
imposed under La.R.S. 14:64 (and 14:27 for attempted armed
each conviction, the defendant was sentenced to serve thirty
years at hard labor with no indication of whether that
included the additional five years required by La.R.S.
14:64.3. In State v. White, 42, 725 (La.App. 2 Cir.
10/24/07), 968 So.2d 901, the defendant was convicted of two
counts of armed robbery with a firearm and sentenced to
thirty-five years at hard labor without the benefit of
parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on each count to
run concurrently. In its error patent review, the court noted
that the trial court did not specify what portion, if any, of
the defendant's thirty-five year hard labor sentence
without benefits was imposed under La.R.S. 14:64.3. The court
found that the absence of a specification that the
defendant's sentences included a term under La.R.S.
14:64.3 rendered the defendant's sentence indeterminate.
The court vacated the sentences and remanded the matter for
resentencing for clarification of whether the defendant's
sentences included any additional punishment under La.R.S.
14:64.3. Id. See also State v. Billingsley, 11-1425
(La.App. 3 Cir. 3/14/12), 86 So.3d 872.
in this matter, we vacate the sentences imposed for the
convictions of the armed robbery with a use of a firearm and
attempted armed robbery with use of a firearm and remand the
case to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with
La.R.S. 14:27, 14:64, and 14:64.3. The trial court should
clearly set forth the portion of the sentence enhanced under
OF ERROR 
state failed to sufficiently prove that Devonte Roberts was
the person who robbed the Wing Stop and ran from police.
state's first witness was Robert Broussard, the
supervisor of information and custodian of records for
Calcasieu Parish 911. Mr. Broussard described the technical
manner in which 911 calls are monitored and recorded and
acknowledged providing the Lake Charles Police Department
with a CD containing calls related to the robbery of the Wing
Stop on September 26, 2013. Those calls were introduced into
evidence and played for the jury.
state then called Jasmine Miller, the manager of the Wing
Stop at the time of the robbery. Ms. Miller testified that
right around midnight, just before the restaurant closed, she
noticed someone slowly jogging up to the store and
"[she] noticed that he had Timberland boots on, a
facemask, and a gun." She told everyone they were
getting robbed and "grabbed the phone and [she]
immediately called 911 and [she] hid." Ms. Miller did
not know what color the mask was and did not make eye contact
with the robber; however, she described his boots as
"very distinct boots," noting they were
yellow-colored work boots. She knew the robber was a black
guy but could not recall what he was wearing aside from the
boots and mask.
Miller could not identify the defendant in court as the
person who robbed the Wing Stop, but she testified she knew
the person arrested that night was the person who committed
the robbery because of his distinctive walk. She also noted
the person arrested that night "had the Timberland boots
on." She noted the robber was thin and around her
height, which was five feet, nine inches.
cross-examination, Ms. Miller testified that she sees
Timberland boots often because "[a] lot of people wear
them, especially [her] age." After reviewing her
previously recorded statement to police, Ms. Miller
acknowledged she never mentioned the boots to law enforcement
on the night of the robbery, but noted she told them the
robber was dark-skinned and noted the defendant was
light-skinned. She also acknowledged she told law enforcement
the robber was wearing a grey t-shirt, which she had not
remembered during her ...