STATE OF LOUISIANA v. KELVIN RAYMOND HARRISON (2025)

Defendant, Kelvin Raymond Harrison, appeals his conviction for armed robbery.

In September 2022, Defendant was charged with one count of armed robbery under La.R.S. 14:64. Trial took place in December 2024. At the close of evidence, the jury unanimously found Defendant guilty as charged. Then, in late-January 2025, Defendant was sentenced to fifty years at hard labor. Defendant now appeals his conviction.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

All criminal appeals are initially reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record under La.Code Crim.P. art. 920. Here, we find no patent errors.

Now to Defendant's only assignment of error: Defendant contends that the State did not prove he was armed with a dangerous weapon when he committed the robbery. Thus, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

A sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge is reviewed on appeal under the standard set forth by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979). “[T]he relevant question 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 beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 319.

“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, 05-477, p. 6 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517, 521. After all, the appellate court's function is not to assess the credibility of witnesses or to reweigh the evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442. The appellate court must instead afford great deference to a jury's decision to accept or reject the testimony. State v. Allen, 36,180 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/18/02), 828 So.2d 622, writs denied, 02-2595 (La. 3/28/03), 840 So.2d 566, and 02-2997 (La. 6/27/03), 847 So.2d 1255, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1185, 124 S.Ct. 1404 (2004).

Summary of the Record Evidence

The victim, Donna Butler, testified at trial about the robbery. She explained that on the afternoon of May 16, 2022, she was waiting in her car to pick up her son at the Autism Center in Alexandria. Defendant opened the door of her 2020 Kia Optima and told her to get out. Ms. Butler then explained the incident this way:

Once he opened the door, he kind of wedged himself. Um, from there, I did see he was bald and he had, you know, like a beard. Um, sweaty, just aggressive, you know, being screaming at me kind of and, um, he tells me, you know, get out, get out, and I'm like, you know, me, I'm like what. You know, caught off guard. And, um, he then tells me, he's like I don't want to hurt you, and I see him switch something from one hand to the other, and he had a, um, I want to believe it was a red shirt, um, and inside that red shirt he unraveled it, and said I don't want to hurt you and shows me a knife. Midsize, I would say, hunting knife machete. It wasn't, I mean, it was like a blade like this. Um, so, he's like you can even grab your purse. So, I grab my purse and just get out [be]cause at that time, you know, I'm, I'm mom. I don't need my kids walking out there, being seen me bloody. Um, he jumps in my car and leaves the scene of where I then called 911[.]

Next, Corporal Daren Luneau of the Alexandria Police Department testified about his interactions with Ms. Butler, including her initial statement to police. According to Corporal Luneau, Ms. Butler stated at the crime scene that she was approached by a shirtless black man wearing green shorts; he pulled out a knife, told her to get out of her vehicle, and drove off.

A video recording of the robbery was also introduced in evidence. The video shows Defendant with a shirt wrapped around each of his arms, one black and one red. The video shows Defendant opening Ms. Butler's car door and then screaming at her to get out. In response, Ms. Butler exits the vehicle and calls 911. Ms. Butler can be heard telling the operator that someone “just pulled a knife on me and stole my car.” Although the knife cannot be seen in the video footage, Corporal Luneau opines that the knife could have been concealed by one of the shirts covering Defendant's arms.

Later in the trial, a video recording of Defendant's police interview was admitted into evidence. During the interview, Defendant admitted to the robbery, including telling Ms. Butler to get out of her car. But when asked whether he had been armed with a knife, he responded only that he had a t-shirt.

Armed Robbery—Sufficiency of the Evidence

“Armed robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon.” La.R.S. 14:64(A).

Here, Defendant admits to stealing Ms. Butler's vehicle after forcing her from it. Thus, the only issue on appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence that Defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon.

As stated earlier, Ms. Butler testified that Defendant was armed with a knife when he forced her from her car. Ms. Butler's trial testimony about Defendant's possession of a knife was consistent with her statement to the 911 operator and with her subsequent statements to police. And although the knife is not visible in the video footage of the robbery, Defendant could have concealed it with the shirts wrapped around his arms.

This court addressed a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge in State v. F.B.A., 07-1526 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/28/08), 983 So.2d 1006, writ denied, 08-1464 (La. 3/27/09), 5 So.3d 138:

[T]he testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction “[i]n the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflicts with physical evidence.” State v. Dixon, 04–1019, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/15/05), 900 So.2d 929, 936. The trier of fact may accept or reject the testimony of any witness, and the determination of the credibility of that witness, in whole or in part, is left to its sound discretion and “will not be re-weighed on appeal.” Id. at 936.

Id. at 1009 (second alteration in the original).

To sum up, Ms. Butler testified to the jury that Defendant was armed with a knife. The jury evidently believed her because it unanimously convicted Defendant of armed robbery. Thus, in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed the robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon. Defendant's assignment of error is therefore without merit.

DISPOSITION

Defendant's conviction is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

CHARLES G. FITZGERALD JUDGE