Judgment rendered April 10, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,582-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
ANTONIO C. EALY Appellant
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 366,025
Honorable Ramona L. Emanuel, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: G. Paul Marx
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
SUZANNA MORELOCK ELLIS SENAE DENEAL HALL Assistant District Attorneys
Before PITMAN, STEPHENS, and ROBINSON, JJ. ROBINSON, J.
Antonio Ealy was convicted as charged of first degree robbery by a
unanimous jury. He was sentenced to ten years at hard labor without benefit
of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Ealy’s appellate counsel has
filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704
So. 2d 241; and State v. Benjamin, 573 So. 2d 528 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990).
Appellate counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.
For the following reasons, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm
Ealy’s conviction and sentence.
FACTS
Near midnight on March 29, 2019, a black male with his face covered
entered the Sonic restaurant located on Line Avenue in Shreveport,
Louisiana. At the time, the Sonic’s manager, Kala Smith, was training
another employee, Kimberly Tulley, about the procedures for closing the
restaurant and preparing the restaurant’s proceeds for deposit. The
restaurant’s surveillance cameras captured the male going to the area where
they were working and pointing a gun at them. As the two women fled the
restaurant, the male grabbed a deposit bag before also leaving the restaurant.
Ealy, who had been an employee at the restaurant until two weeks
earlier, was recognized on the surveillance video by the Sonic’s owner.
Detective Melvin Smith, with the Shreveport Police Department’s tactical
robbery unit, began investigating Ealy, who eventually confessed his crime
to the detective.
On September 16, 2019, Ealy was charged by bill of information in
Caddo Parish with first degree robbery in violation of La. R.S. 14:64.1. The bill was subsequently amended twice to add details such as changing the
names of the victims.
A jury trial began in June of 2021. Kala Smith testified that when the
gunman entered the Sonic, she grabbed Tully and they ran out of the
restaurant. Smith, who had worked with Ealy for six to seven months, was
not entirely positive of the gunman’s identity in the immediate aftermath of
the robbery. However, when she later watched the surveillance video, she
recognized Ealy as the gunman based on the way he moved and his clothing.
She explained that the gunman was wearing the same pants that Ealy wore to
work. The video, which was played for the jury, showed Ealy grabbing the
deposit bag which the employees had started filling with the money from the
night shift. Smith had no doubt that it was Ealy who committed the crime.
Smith also testified that Ealy had attempted to contact her before trial.
Kimberly Tulley described how when Smith pulled on her arm, she
turned to see someone standing there with a gun. Tully, who had worked
with Ealy at the Sonic, recognized the gunman’s eyes and clothing. Tulley
testified that Ealy had distinctive eyes, and that some of the employees
referred to Ealy as “pretty eyes.” The gunman was also wearing the black
pants that Ealy wore to work, and the bandana covering the gunman’s face
was the same one that Ealy wore in his back pocket to work.
Tulley was reluctant to tell police at first about her suspicions of the
gunman’s identity on the chance that she was wrong. Before Tulley had a
chance to view the video, the store owner told her that it was Ealy on the
video. However, Tulley’s suspicions were confirmed when she watched the
video the next day. She also recognized the way that the gunman walked.
2 Tulley had no doubt that it was Ealy who pointed the gun at her and stole the
money, which amounted to less than $700.
Tulley also testified that Ealy contacted her by Facebook Messenger
following the robbery. Ealy admitted to the robbery, said there was no clip
in his gun, and asked her not to go to court.
Felicia Kelly is the owner and operator of the Sonic restaurant. She is
familiar with Ealy because she trained him as a cook. Ealy worked for four
to six months, and then later for a few days. Kelly explained she recognized
the gunman’s clothing because the black long-sleeve turtleneck shirt and
black jeans worn by him were what Ealy would sometimes wear to work
instead of the required Sonic uniform. She noticed that the way that the
gunman walked as shown on the video was similar to Ealy’s gait because
Ealy had a “little dip” in his walk. Kelly also recognized the gunman’s eyes
and forehead as belonging to Ealy. Kelly had no doubt that it was Ealy
shown on the video robbing her restaurant.
Kelly testified that $654.19 was stolen, and that Ealy later returned
$750. She also testified that Ealy called her, and at first denied robbing the
store. However, he admitted to doing it, apologized, and said he was on
drugs. He also asked her not to come to court.
Detective Smith testified that he separately spoke with Kala Smith and
Tulley in the early morning hours after the robbery. Both told him that an
unknown black male entered the store armed with a handgun. When Kelly
showed the video footage to him, she remarked that she believed she knew
the individual who robbed the store. She told him that the gunman looked
similar to Ealy based on his body language and what he was wearing.
Detective Smith interviewed Ealy without success on April 4. The next day, 3 Ealy’s stepfather called Detective Smith to say that he had information about
the robbery. When Ealy was interviewed on April 5, he told Detective
Smith that he had lost his rent money at the casino the day of the robbery.
Later, as he drove past the Sonic, he thought to himself that he could rob it
to make money as he was familiar with the Sonic’s closing procedure. Ealy,
who claimed to the detective that he was armed with a BB gun that he
discarded following the robbery, said he took between $650 and $700 from
the restaurant.
On June 23, 2021, Antonio Ealy was convicted by the jury as charged
of first degree robbery. A motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal was
filed on October 6, 2021. Ealy’s counsel argued that the evidence was
insufficient to establish that he committed the first degree robbery. The
motion was denied.
A sentencing hearing was held on April 12, 2022. The court stated it
had considered letters and emails on Ealy’s behalf, a doctor’s note from
when Ealy was younger concerning attention deficit disorder, and his
criminal history. The court also considered the La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1
guidelines and concluded that Ealy was in need of correctional treatment and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered April 10, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,582-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
ANTONIO C. EALY Appellant
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 366,025
Honorable Ramona L. Emanuel, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: G. Paul Marx
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
SUZANNA MORELOCK ELLIS SENAE DENEAL HALL Assistant District Attorneys
Before PITMAN, STEPHENS, and ROBINSON, JJ. ROBINSON, J.
Antonio Ealy was convicted as charged of first degree robbery by a
unanimous jury. He was sentenced to ten years at hard labor without benefit
of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Ealy’s appellate counsel has
filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704
So. 2d 241; and State v. Benjamin, 573 So. 2d 528 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990).
Appellate counsel has also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.
For the following reasons, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm
Ealy’s conviction and sentence.
FACTS
Near midnight on March 29, 2019, a black male with his face covered
entered the Sonic restaurant located on Line Avenue in Shreveport,
Louisiana. At the time, the Sonic’s manager, Kala Smith, was training
another employee, Kimberly Tulley, about the procedures for closing the
restaurant and preparing the restaurant’s proceeds for deposit. The
restaurant’s surveillance cameras captured the male going to the area where
they were working and pointing a gun at them. As the two women fled the
restaurant, the male grabbed a deposit bag before also leaving the restaurant.
Ealy, who had been an employee at the restaurant until two weeks
earlier, was recognized on the surveillance video by the Sonic’s owner.
Detective Melvin Smith, with the Shreveport Police Department’s tactical
robbery unit, began investigating Ealy, who eventually confessed his crime
to the detective.
On September 16, 2019, Ealy was charged by bill of information in
Caddo Parish with first degree robbery in violation of La. R.S. 14:64.1. The bill was subsequently amended twice to add details such as changing the
names of the victims.
A jury trial began in June of 2021. Kala Smith testified that when the
gunman entered the Sonic, she grabbed Tully and they ran out of the
restaurant. Smith, who had worked with Ealy for six to seven months, was
not entirely positive of the gunman’s identity in the immediate aftermath of
the robbery. However, when she later watched the surveillance video, she
recognized Ealy as the gunman based on the way he moved and his clothing.
She explained that the gunman was wearing the same pants that Ealy wore to
work. The video, which was played for the jury, showed Ealy grabbing the
deposit bag which the employees had started filling with the money from the
night shift. Smith had no doubt that it was Ealy who committed the crime.
Smith also testified that Ealy had attempted to contact her before trial.
Kimberly Tulley described how when Smith pulled on her arm, she
turned to see someone standing there with a gun. Tully, who had worked
with Ealy at the Sonic, recognized the gunman’s eyes and clothing. Tulley
testified that Ealy had distinctive eyes, and that some of the employees
referred to Ealy as “pretty eyes.” The gunman was also wearing the black
pants that Ealy wore to work, and the bandana covering the gunman’s face
was the same one that Ealy wore in his back pocket to work.
Tulley was reluctant to tell police at first about her suspicions of the
gunman’s identity on the chance that she was wrong. Before Tulley had a
chance to view the video, the store owner told her that it was Ealy on the
video. However, Tulley’s suspicions were confirmed when she watched the
video the next day. She also recognized the way that the gunman walked.
2 Tulley had no doubt that it was Ealy who pointed the gun at her and stole the
money, which amounted to less than $700.
Tulley also testified that Ealy contacted her by Facebook Messenger
following the robbery. Ealy admitted to the robbery, said there was no clip
in his gun, and asked her not to go to court.
Felicia Kelly is the owner and operator of the Sonic restaurant. She is
familiar with Ealy because she trained him as a cook. Ealy worked for four
to six months, and then later for a few days. Kelly explained she recognized
the gunman’s clothing because the black long-sleeve turtleneck shirt and
black jeans worn by him were what Ealy would sometimes wear to work
instead of the required Sonic uniform. She noticed that the way that the
gunman walked as shown on the video was similar to Ealy’s gait because
Ealy had a “little dip” in his walk. Kelly also recognized the gunman’s eyes
and forehead as belonging to Ealy. Kelly had no doubt that it was Ealy
shown on the video robbing her restaurant.
Kelly testified that $654.19 was stolen, and that Ealy later returned
$750. She also testified that Ealy called her, and at first denied robbing the
store. However, he admitted to doing it, apologized, and said he was on
drugs. He also asked her not to come to court.
Detective Smith testified that he separately spoke with Kala Smith and
Tulley in the early morning hours after the robbery. Both told him that an
unknown black male entered the store armed with a handgun. When Kelly
showed the video footage to him, she remarked that she believed she knew
the individual who robbed the store. She told him that the gunman looked
similar to Ealy based on his body language and what he was wearing.
Detective Smith interviewed Ealy without success on April 4. The next day, 3 Ealy’s stepfather called Detective Smith to say that he had information about
the robbery. When Ealy was interviewed on April 5, he told Detective
Smith that he had lost his rent money at the casino the day of the robbery.
Later, as he drove past the Sonic, he thought to himself that he could rob it
to make money as he was familiar with the Sonic’s closing procedure. Ealy,
who claimed to the detective that he was armed with a BB gun that he
discarded following the robbery, said he took between $650 and $700 from
the restaurant.
On June 23, 2021, Antonio Ealy was convicted by the jury as charged
of first degree robbery. A motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal was
filed on October 6, 2021. Ealy’s counsel argued that the evidence was
insufficient to establish that he committed the first degree robbery. The
motion was denied.
A sentencing hearing was held on April 12, 2022. The court stated it
had considered letters and emails on Ealy’s behalf, a doctor’s note from
when Ealy was younger concerning attention deficit disorder, and his
criminal history. The court also considered the La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1
guidelines and concluded that Ealy was in need of correctional treatment and
that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the crime. Ealy
was sentenced to ten years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole,
or suspension of sentence.
Ealy’s trial counsel never filed a motion to appeal either his
conviction or his sentence. On March 2, 2023, Ealy filed an application for
post-conviction relief. He sought an out-of-time appeal, which was granted
on April 5, 2023. Appellate counsel was assigned to Ealy.
4 Appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.
By order dated November 29, 2023, this court held the motion in abeyance.
The order noted that Ealy had been notified of the pro se briefing deadline of
November 27. Ealy has not filed a pro se brief.
DISCUSSION
Our review of this record reveals no nonfrivolous errors regarding
Ealy’s conviction or sentence. The evidence supporting the conviction is
overwhelming. The sentence imposed is at the lower end of the sentencing
range. We discern no error patent on our review.
We note that on the second day of jury selection, during the
challenges for cause, defense counsel complained that because many black
jurors had indicated that they did not want to be involved in Ealy’s trial, they
would end up with no black jurors, which would be a violation of Batson v.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), or at the
very least a violation of the spirit of Batson. Defense counsel later argued
that it was unfair that most of the black panel members did not want to be on
the jury. The court ultimately denied the state’s challenges for cause for
three jurors. The state withdrew its challenge for cause for a fourth juror.
After the state used peremptory strikes against four black jurors,
defense counsel made a Batson challenge arguing that the four strikes were
based on race. The trial court found there was no prima facie showing by
the defense and denied the Batson challenge.
Defense counsel then argued that a disproportionate number of
potential jurors were white. The court noted that only two of thirteen
tentative jurors were black. The court found that the defense had made a
prima facie case in accord with Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 125 S. Ct. 5 2317, 162 L. Ed. 2d 196 (2005). However, the court ultimately denied the
Batson challenge as it found that the state had asserted race-neutral reasons
for the peremptory strikes.
CONCLUSION
We agree with appellate counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues
concerning Ealy’s conviction and sentence. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm his conviction and sentence, and grant the motion to withdraw as
counsel of record.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD GRANTED.