State v. Brown

Citations: 63 So. 3d 270; 10 La.App. 5 Cir. 617; 2011 La. App. LEXIS 381; 2011 WL 1135544Docket: No. 10-KA-617

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; March 29, 2011; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On February 5, 2009, Catina P. Brown was charged with access device fraud under LSA-R.S. 14:70.4. After pleading not guilty, a jury found her guilty of a lesser charge of access device fraud involving amounts between $300 and $500 on March 3, 2010. Following a denied motion for a new trial on March 25, 2010, the court sentenced her to three years at hard labor without the possibility of good time reduction. The State then filed a multiple offender bill, which Brown stipulated to, leading to a revised sentence of 20 years without probation or suspension, with the first three years also not eligible for good time. Defense counsel objected and indicated an intention to appeal, which was formally filed on March 30, 2010.

Key evidence presented included testimony from Janet Grey Ryan, the victim's niece and power of attorney, regarding unauthorized withdrawals from her uncle Jack Grey's accounts totaling $6,968.00. The victim, who was mentally alert and managed his finances, noticed discrepancies in his bank statements and reported missing checks to Mrs. Ryan. Following her intervention and actions with Capital One, five unauthorized transactions linked to Tyler and Catina Brown were identified and subsequently reversed. Mrs. Ryan reported the fraudulent activity to the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, leading to further investigation.

The victim reported unauthorized transactions on his bank account to Detective Wright, providing information through Mrs. Ryan, who has power of attorney over his affairs. Mrs. Ryan stated the victim was private about his finances and never authorized anyone to use his account. She identified Tyler and Catina Brown as individuals who withdrew funds. Marco Demma, a Senior Fraud Investigator at Capital One Bank, confirmed five electronic charges on the victim's account but could not determine who initiated them, emphasizing that the originator would need access to the account number and routing number. Detective Wright interviewed the victim and Mrs. Ryan, who retrieved bank records documenting the unauthorized charges. The investigation led to the arrest of Tyler Brown and the defendant on December 26, 2008, at the Atrium, where the defendant lived and worked. The defendant waived her rights and denied involvement, although she had previously inquired about the victim's power of attorney. She cooperated with the investigation, retrieving her credit card statements, which included a transaction corresponding with one from the victim's account. Despite the charges being linked to Tyler and Catina Brown, Detective Wright stated he could not definitively identify the individual responsible for them. Testimony from Marie Scavo, the executive director at the Atrium, described the defendant's employment history and responsibilities, including handling rent payments in the office.

Defendant had unrestricted access to Ms. Scavo's office, including personnel files and keys to other offices, due to possessing a key. Ms. Scavo noted that defendant's son, Tyler Brown, shared similar access as he worked at the Atrium and lived with defendant. Tyler's job involved meal preparation and delivery. During an incident, when asked by Ms. Scavo about the situation, Tyler expressed concern about his mother going back to jail. Ms. Scavo indicated that it was common for the marketing director (defendant) to request power of attorney documents for updating medical records. She received a letter from defendant, which appeared to be an apology and contained a request for her to testify that defendant managed leases and contracts but did not handle checks—this was untrue. Karen Keller, the Business Office Manager, confirmed her role in billing and collections and stated that both she and Ms. Scavo had keys to each other's offices, but only Keller had access to the locked box for checks. After defendant's arrest, Tyler allegedly told Keller that his mother wanted him to take the blame for the incident. Tyler testified for the defense, claiming sole responsibility for the fraud involving Jack Grey’s account and denied discussing taking the blame with Keller. He admitted to stealing a check while delivering a meal to the victim and using it to pay his mother’s AT&T bill, stating he pocketed money given by his mother for drugs. Tyler's affidavit claimed he received about $400 from defendant to pay the bill, but he maintained that his mother had no involvement in his crime, for which he pled guilty.

After his mother's arrest, Mr. Brown voluntarily surrendered to police and confessed to committing the offense, though he did not provide detailed statements. During cross-examination, he stated that he refrained from elaborating during questioning based on his attorney's advice and denied contacting the State’s attorney, Mr. Wallace, in November 2009, or being in Tennessee during that time due to a probation violation. Contrarily, rebuttal witness Norman Schultz testified that he retrieved a voicemail from Mr. Brown to Mr. Wallace dated November 30, 2009, made from a Tennessee number. The jury ultimately convicted Mr. Brown of access device fraud for an amount between $300 and $500. Following the denial of her motion for a new trial, the defendant, Catina Brown, filed an appeal, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction, asserting that her son was the sole perpetrator. The State contended there was evidence suggesting that the defendant encouraged her son to take the blame. The appellate standard for evaluating evidence sufficiency, based on the precedent set in Jackson v. Virginia, requires that, when viewed favorably to the prosecution, a rational jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, taking into account both direct and circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, though this requirement aligns with the Jackson standard rather than constituting a separate standard.

To establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence must be sufficient, encompassing both direct and circumstantial forms. The appellate court evaluates the evidence favorably towards the State and assesses whether any alternative hypothesis presented by the defendant is reasonable enough that a rational juror could not find proof of guilt under the Jackson standard. The defendant was charged with access device fraud exceeding $500 but was convicted of a lesser charge involving fraud between $300 and $500, as outlined in LSA-R.S. 14:70.4. This statute prohibits the unauthorized transfer of access devices with the intent to defraud. For a conviction, the State must demonstrate that the defendant intended to defraud and that the value of the misappropriation fell within the specified range. The intent to defraud requires proof of specific intent, which can be inferred from the defendant's actions and the surrounding circumstances rather than needing explicit proof. The determination of specific intent is a legal conclusion made by the fact finder, subject to review based on the Jackson standard.

In the case of State v. Lecompte, the court determined that sufficient evidence existed for the jury to conclude that the defendant misappropriated funds from a 90-year-old victim’s checking account, totaling between $300 and $500, without his consent. The evidence indicated that the defendant colluded with her son to transfer the victim's account number to debit money unlawfully. Key testimonies included those from the victim's niece and power of attorney, Ms. Janet Ryan, who reported unauthorized transactions after the victim noticed discrepancies in his checkbook. The investigation revealed five unauthorized transactions, including one credited to an AT&T account in the defendant's name.

Defendant did not dispute the occurrence of access device fraud but claimed no knowledge of the crime. However, witness testimonies suggested her involvement, including a conversation where her son, Tyler Brown, expressed reluctance to see his mother jailed. Additionally, a letter from the defendant appeared to request that a witness provide false testimony regarding her access to the victim’s account. Detective Wright provided evidence of inconsistencies in the defendant's statements and noted that she repaid a fraudulent charge shortly after it was reversed by the bank.

Tyler Brown, while testifying in defense of his mother, admitted to stealing a check and using the victim's account information for his own purposes, affirming that the defendant had given him cash for a phone bill, which he misused for drugs. This testimony supported the notion of the defendant's indirect involvement in the crime despite her claims of innocence.

Defendant's case involved inconsistencies in the testimony of Tyler Brown, who initially stated his mother provided him with $300 in cash to pay a bill, but later admitted in a sworn affidavit that she gave him $400. Tyler attempted to use the victim's account information for multiple transactions, reflecting responsibility for four transactions, yet denied making a call to the State’s attorney in November 2009, claiming he was not in Tennessee due to probation restrictions. However, a voicemail from him to the attorney was presented, confirming the call originated from a Tennessee number.

The jury was shown evidence that contradicted Tyler's defense, including a statement from Detective Wright that the defendant paid her bills online, opposing Tyler's claim of receiving cash. Bank records indicated five transactions, four linked to Tyler, supporting the assertion that the defendant was involved in one transaction related to a $413 AT&T bill. Additional testimony revealed Tyler lied to evade a probation violation and had an agreement with his mother to take responsibility for the crime. Both the defendant and Tyler had access to the victim’s account information.

The jury ultimately found the State's witnesses more credible than Tyler's, determining beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed access device fraud involving the AT&T transaction. The appellate court noted that credibility assessments are at the discretion of the trier-of-fact and that it does not reweigh evidence unless fundamental due process is violated. The evidence presented was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt for the crime.

The defendant sought an error patent review, which the Court conducts routinely under LSA-C.Cr. P. art. 920, independent of the defendant's request. The trial court was found to have erred by sentencing the defendant under the habitual offender statute without allowing for good time credit. Specifically, the defendant was sentenced to 20 years at hard labor, with the first three years served "without benefit of good time," which contradicts LSA-R.S. 15:571.3(0. This statute restricts good time credit decisions to the Department of Corrections, and the trial court lacks authority to make such determinations, as established in prior case law. Consequently, the sentence was amended to remove the prohibition on earning good time credit, while affirming the conviction and the amended sentence. Additionally, the defendant’s son, Tyler Brown, who faced the same charges, had previously pled guilty. There were discrepancies in evidence regarding some of the defendant's records, which were incorrectly attributed to "Red Dot" or "Brown Dot" instead of their actual source, greendotonline.com. Furthermore, a witness identified a number as belonging to Linda Ward, related to Tyler Brown’s uncle in Tennessee.