Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Lambert

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit

November 6, 2019

STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
DERRICK JAMES LAMBERT A/K/A DERRICK LAMBERT

          APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 63, 643 HONORABLE EDWARD B. BROUSSARD, DISTRICT JUDGE.

          John V. Ghio Assistant District Attorney Counsel for Appellee: State of Louisiana

          Sean Brucker Fifteenth Judicial District Public Defender Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Derrick James Lambert

          Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Phyllis M. Keaty, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.

          PHYLLIS M. KEATY JUDGE.

         Defendant appeals his conviction for monetary instrument abuse. For the following reasons, Defendant's conviction is affirmed.

         FACTS & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On 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.

         On 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."

         DISCUSSION

         I. Errors Patent

         In 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.

         II. Assignment of Error

         In his 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, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.