64 So. 3d 363
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Mark S. Cambrice was convicted of first degree robbery (LSA-R.S. 14:64.1) after a jury trial.
- The armed robbery charge was reduced to first degree robbery; a subsequent habitual offender proceeding was held.
- Defendant challenged two issues on appeal: sufficiency of the evidence and suppression of his October 4, 2007 statement.
- Witness Ms. Glapion testified she believed Cambrice had a gun and identified him in surveillance materials and at lineup.
- No weapon was recovered, but the State argued victim belief and identification sufficed for first degree robbery.
- The court vacated the habitual offender adjudication and sentence and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports first degree robbery. | Cambrice argues lack of a weapon requires acquittal. | State proof relied on belief and identification, not weapon presence. | Sufficient evidence supported first degree robbery beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Whether Cambrice's statement was illegally obtained and should have been suppressed. | State properly admitted confessed statement following Miranda waiver. | Statement coerced by police; rights not validly waived. | Suppression properly denied; confession admitted; waiver knowingly voluntary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1979) (establishes standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Harrell, 811 So.2d 1015 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2002) (sufficiency review; factual credibility by fact-finder)
- Fortune, 608 So.2d 148 (La.1992) (victim belief governing first degree robbery vs. simple robbery)
- Collier, 39,882 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2005) (La.App. 2 Cir. 2005) (necessity of subjective belief that offender armed)
- Fuller, 980 So.2d 45 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2008) (positive identification sufficient for conviction)
- Thomas, 13 So.3d 603 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (elements of armed robbery and first degree robbery; proof of weapon not always required)
- Cotton, 646 So.2d 1144 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1994) (attribution of weapon via factor of intimidation; not require weapon presentation)
- Brown, 591 So.2d 791 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1991) (robbery armed if victim reasonably believes danger; weapon not required to be shown)
- State v. Babineaux, 8 So.3d 621 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (error patent; habitual offender procedure; right to hearing)