State v. Carter, 167 So. 3d 970

On July 19, 2011 three men robbed Pablo’s Truck Stop; two were unmasked and forced security guard Robert Carter at gunpoint to open cash drawers; ~ $8,000 was taken.
Defendant George Adonis Carter and co-defendant Travis T. Isaac were charged with armed robbery (use of a firearm) and defendant also with felon in possession; both convicted by jury.
Carter (the security guard) identified Isaac from a six-photo lineup, then identified defendant the next day from a second six-photo lineup that reused five of the same filler photos (only the suspect photo was swapped).
DNA from duct tape found at the scene matched defendant; surveillance, witness testimony (including Todd Isaac) and recovered money supported the State’s case.
Defendant moved to suppress the pretrial photographic identification (arguing the lineup was suggestive), challenged sufficiency of evidence, raised several pro se claims, and objected to sentencing procedures; trial court denied suppression and convicted; sentences were imposed consecutively.
On appeal the convictions were affirmed, but sentences were vacated and case remanded for resentencing because the court failed to observe the 24-hour delay after denial of a motion for new trial before imposing sentence.

Issue	State's Argument	Carter (Defendant)'s Argument	Held
Admissibility of photographic identification	Identification reliable: witness familiarity, opportunity to view, prompt ID, high certainty	Lineup was unduly suggestive because five photos reused and only suspect photo swapped, increasing misidentification risk	Denied suppression; suggestiveness outweighed by reliability under totality of circumstances; no abuse of discretion
Sufficiency of the evidence	Combined eyewitness ID, DNA match to duct tape, surveillance and witness testimony exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence	Misidentification risk; DNA inconclusive because fraternal twin not tested; alternative explanations for recovered money	Conviction affirmed: evidence, viewed in light most favorable to State, supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Trial-court failure to inform re: right to waive jury at arraignment (pro se)	Article 780 (pre-amendment) notice not constitutionally required; after amendment no mandatory notice; defendant re-arraigned post-amendment	Trial court erred by not advising of right to waive jury; would have waived if advised	Denied: defendant’s re-arraignment occurred after Article 780 amendment; no reversible error
Sentencing procedure (24-hour delay after denial of new trial)	N/A (error in procedure)	Sentencing imposed immediately after denial of motions without waiver of 24-hour delay	Sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing for failure to observe Article 873 delay

State v. Sparks, 68 So.3d 435 (La. 2011) (sets suggestiveness/reliability framework and factors for photographic identifications)
State v. Neslo, 433 So.2d 73 (La. 1983) (identification is suggestive if it unduly focuses attention on suspect)
State v. Green, 655 So.2d 272 (La. 1995) (trial court factual findings on suppression entitled to great weight)
State v. Hunt, 25 So.3d 746 (La. 2009) (legal findings on suppression reviewed de novo)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La. 1988) (Jackson standard incorporated in La. Crim. Proc. art. 821)
State v. Ordodi, 946 So.2d 654 (La. 2006) (appellate court should not substitute its credibility determinations for the factfinder)
State v. Calloway, 1 So.3d 417 (La. 2009) (reiterates deference to factfinder on credibility)
State v. Augustine, 555 So.2d 1331 (La. 1990) (failure to observe required post-motion delay before sentencing requires vacatur when sentence challenged)