STATE v. TURNER (2026)

Defendant-Appellant, Jajuan Marvell Turner, (“Defendant”), appeals his conviction of attempted home invasion under La. R.S.14:27 and La. R.S.14:62.8. For the following reasons, we affirm Defendant's conviction and remand with instructions.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the late evening of December 8, and into the early morning hours of December 9, 2023, Defendant repeatedly kicked the home/trailer door of Rebecca Billiot, a disabled woman in her late fifties, causing severe damage. Earlier that evening Defendant, along with Danica Sylve, her children and her boyfriend, Gotti, were together at the home of Ms. Sylve's mother. She had planned a sleepover for her children at her mother's home, but they were asked to leave. Ms. Sylve subsequently asked her “Nanny,” Ms. Billiot, if she could have the sleepover at her home. Ms. Billiot agreed to host.

While present in Ms. Billiot's home, Defendant and Ms. Sylve were involved in a verbal altercation regarding the repayment of ten dollars he claimed to have loaned her earlier in the day. As the altercation escalated into screaming, cursing and threats, Ms. Billiot asked Defendant to leave, which he did. Shortly thereafter, Defendant returned and began banging and kicking on Ms. Billiot's trailer door. He continued screaming, cursing and threatened to “knock Ms. Sylve's head off” and “to bat the fuck out of her.” As a result, Ms. Billiot dialed 911. During the call, Defendant can be heard screaming at the occupants of Ms. Billiot's trailer and kicking the door. Defendant left the property, and Ms. Sylve also departed the trailer to pick up other children. He returned a short time later, and resumed screaming and kicking the door. Upon his arrival to the Billiot residence, Charles Maynard, a lieutenant with the Plaquemines Parish Sheriff's Office, observed Defendant kicking the door. Defendant then approached Lieutenant Maynard and he was placed in handcuffs and arrested.

The State filed a Bill of Information on February 26, 2024, charging Defendant with one count of attempted home invasion in violation of La. R.S. 14:62.8 and La. R.S. 14:27. In October, 2025, Defendant filed a written waiver of his right to a jury trial. A bench trial commenced on November 4, 2025, and Defendant was found guilty as charged.¹ One month later, Defendant filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied the following day. The trial court sentenced Defendant to seven years at hard labor on January 6, 2026. The State noted its intent to file a multiple bill of information, and the hearing was held on February 10, 2026. Defendant pled guilty as a second time offender; the trial court vacated his original sentence, and resentenced him to seven years in the Department of Corrections as a Second Offender.²

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Cr.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors patent. A review of the record reveals two errors patent. As to the first, La. R.S. 14:62.8(B) provides: “[w]hoever commits the crime of home invasion shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars and shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than one year nor more than thirty years.” Further, La. R.S. 14:27(D)(3) provides that whoever attempts to commit any crime, “shall be fined or imprisoned or both, in the same manner as for the offense attempted; such fine or imprisonment shall not exceed one-half of the largest fine, or one-half of the longest term of imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted, or both.”

In this case, the trial court failed to impose the statutorily mandated fine. This court has previously determined that failure to impose the mandatory fine requires remand to the trial court for imposition of the fine. See State v. Williams, 03-0302, pp. 3-4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/6/03), 859 So.2d 751, 753. See also State v. Dorsey, 20-0029, pp. 4-5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/9/20), 312 So.3d 652, 656, (“our circuit is ‘constrained to follow the Fourth Circuit's prior jurisprudence directing that we remand for correction of the defendant's sentence where the trial court has failed to impose the statutorily mandated fine.’ ”) Thus, we remand this matter to the trial court for this limited purpose.

As to the second error patent, the record reflects that the trial court failed to advise Defendant of the two-year prescriptive period for filing an application for post-conviction relief pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. No application for post-conviction relief, including an application which seeks an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if it is filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become final under the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. arts. 914 or 922. See State v. Barnett, 18-254 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/3/19), 267 So.3d 209, 235. Accordingly, having advised Defendant of his post-conviction rights, we find the trial court's error to be harmless and does not require further action.

DISCUSSION

In his only assignment of error, Defendant asserts that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction of attempted home invasion. He contends that the State failed to prove that he had the specific intent to enter Ms. Billiot's trailer, to use force or violence against the people in the trailer and to cause damage to the property in the trailer. The Supreme Court enunciated the standard of review for a claim of insufficiency of evidence in Jackson v. Virginia. In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, “the appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.E.2d 560 (1979). State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La. 6/29/01), 796 So.2d 649, 657 (quoting State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La. 1984)). It is not the task of the reviewing court to “assess the credibility of witnesses or re-weigh the evidence absent a finding that the factual conclusions are clearly contrary to the evidence.” State v. Smith, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/21/14), 141 So.3d 853, 859 (quoting State v. Jones, 97–2591, 744 So.2d 165, 169 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/8/99).

Pursuant to La. R.S. 14.62.8(A), home invasion is defined as “the unauthorized entering of any inhabited dwelling, or other structure belonging to another and used in whole or in part as a home or place of abode by a person, where a person is present, with the intent to use force or violence upon the person of another or to vandalize, deface, or damage the property of another.” La. R.S. 14: 27(A) defines an attempt as follows: “[a]ny person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.”

According to La. R.S. 14:10(1), specific intent “is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act.” Defendant argues that the State failed to prove that he had the requisite specific intent to commit the crime of home invasion, and that he made an overt act towards entering Ms. Billiot's trailer or harming the people inside. We disagree.

The evidence reflects that Ms. Billiot asked Defendant to leave her home, but he later returned and began to bang and kick on her door. He also shouted expletives and stated that “he was going to knock Danica out.” She also heard him say that he would “bat the fuck out of her.” Ms. Billiot testified that she feared for her safety and the safety of the children in her home; thus, she dialed 911. During the 911 call, Defendant can be heard screaming and kicking the door for the majority of the fifteen-minute call. She further testified that he left, but later returned, again screaming, shouting expletives and demanding money.

Lieutenant Maynard testified that as he approached Ms. Billiot's trailer, he heard a loud banging noise and observed Defendant kicking the door. Defendant approached the lieutenant ranting that someone owed him money, “in a very violent manner.” Lieutenant Maynard explained that the force he observed Defendant using was comparable to the amount of force he used in the past when entering the homes of incapacitated individuals. His bodycam footage depicted footprints on Ms. Billiot's dented door. When Lieutenant Maynard arrived at her trailer, Ms. Billiot spoke with him through a window as the trailer door was jammed and could not open.

The Defendant testified and denied that he was trying to enter Ms. Billiot's residence. He insisted that he only kicked the door so someone could come outside and give him the money he alleged was owed to him. He acknowledged that he was angry, and under the influence of alcohol at the time. He also admitted that he threatened to “bat the fuck out of Danica,” and his intended purpose was “to scare her into giving me the ten dollars ($10.00).”

Based on the above testimony, the 911 call and Lieutenant Maynard's body cam footage, we find that the State has proven the elements of attempted home invasion.³ Pursuant to La. R.S. 14:27(A), it is immaterial whether he actually accomplished his purpose-- entering Ms. Billiot's trailer. Defendant was present at the trailer after being asked to leave. By his own admission he intended to use force or violence against Danica Sylve to “get his money,” and damaged Ms. Billiot's door in the process.⁴ This assignment of error lacks merit.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Defendant's conviction of attempted home invasion pursuant to La. R.S.14:27 and La. R.S.14:62.8. We remand to the trial court, however, for the imposition of the statutorily mandated fine.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

FOOTNOTES

1.   On November 3, 2025, the trial court granted Defendant's motion to include responsive verdicts.

2.   Defendant had a prior felony conviction for possession of contraband in a penal institution.

3.   See State v. Hart, 10-1614, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/2/11), 80 So.3d 25, 30 (holding that the State had to prove that a defendant “entered a dwelling owned by another without permission, that the dwelling was used in whole as a home, that a person was present when he made the unauthorized entry, and that he had the intent to use force or violence upon the person or to vandalize, deface or damage the property.”)

4.   Hebert Roberts, Jr. testified at trial that he owned two trailers located at 27008 Port Sulphur Road in Plaquemines Parish. Ms. Billiot rented one of the trailers and was a good tenant.

Judge Monique G. Morial