FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF
VERMILION, NO. 63, 643 HONORABLE EDWARD B. BROUSSARD,
V. Ghio Assistant District Attorney Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana
Brucker Fifteenth Judicial District Public Defender Counsel
for Defendant/Appellant: Derrick James Lambert
composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Phyllis M.
Keaty, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.
PHYLLIS M. KEATY JUDGE.
appeals his conviction for monetary instrument abuse. For the
following reasons, Defendant's conviction is affirmed.
& PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
September 27, 2018, Derrick James Lambert entered a bank in
Vermilion Parish with a counterfeit one-hundred-dollar bill
which was torn in half and marked "For Motion Picture
Use Only." Once inside the bank, he attempted to
exchange the counterfeit bill for real money. On November 8,
2018, Lambert (hereinafter Defendant) was charged by bill of
information with monetary instrument abuse in violation of
La.R.S. 14:72.2. On December 17, 2018, Defendant pled no
contest to the amended charge of attempted monetary
instrument abuse, a violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and La.R.S.
14:72.2, pursuant to State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584
(La.1976). Defendant was sentenced to serve three months in
the parish jail. Defendant's counsel also reserved his
right to continue the application for supervisory writ on the
trial court's probable cause determination at the
preliminary examination. Defendant filed a motion for appeal
on January 4, 2019, which was granted.
appeal, Defendant asserts the following assignment of error:
"The trial court erred in finding that the evidence here
could support a charge of Monetary Instrument Abuse because
the instrument at issue was not 'counterfeit or
forged,' and the allegations against Mr. Lambert
therefore could not satisfy the elements of the offense as a
matter of law."
accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are
reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record. After
reviewing the record, we find there are no errors patent.
Assignment of Error
sole assignment of error, Defendant contends the trial court
erred in finding that the evidence supported a charge of
monetary instrument abuse because the instrument was not
"counterfeit or forged" and the allegations against
him, therefore, ...