State of Louisiana v. Archille Parrel Holmes, Jr.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 56,448-KA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered October 1, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,448-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

ARCHILLE PARREL Appellant HOLMES, JR.

Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 388,519

Honorable Donald E. Hathaway, Jr., Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Holli Ann Herrle-Castillo

JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

JASON W. WALTMAN MARGARET E. RICHIE GASKINS Assistant District Attorneys

Before PITMAN, THOMPSON, and ROBINSON, JJ. PITMAN, C. J.

Defendant Archille Parrell Holmes, Jr. appeals his conviction for

second degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1, for which he was

sentenced to life without parole, probation or suspension of sentence. For

the following reasons, his conviction and sentence are affirmed.

FACTS

Defendant was indicted for the second degree murder of Tomel Henry

(“Mel”), a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1, which occurred on February 16,

2022, in Caddo Parish. The following facts were adduced at trial.

Bianca Miles (a/k/a “Beko”) testified that she lived with her brother

Jakobe Miles at 5230 Mansfield Road in Shreveport. Beko and Mel have a

three-year-old son together. She and Mel broke up when their son was two

years old, and they had a contentious coparenting relationship. On

February 16, 2022, Beko was pregnant with a baby whose father’s name is

Diamante. Beko received a phone call from Diamante’s girlfriend who was

angry with Beko for being pregnant with her boyfriend’s child. The

girlfriend threatened to come to Beko’s house to fight with her.

Because she was afraid, Beko called her sisters, Rahquel Miles and

Tina Miles, and her cousin, Brionna Murray, to come over to help protect

her from Diamante’s girlfriend. Rahquel had been dating Defendant for a

few months, and he was at her apartment when Beko called. Brionna had

known Defendant for years. Tina, Rahquel, Brionna and Defendant drove to

Beko’s house together. They arrived before noon and met Beko and Jakobe

there. Diamante and his girlfriend never showed up, but an hour later, Mel

arrived in his car. He had a passenger with him named Cadarious (a/k/a

“Tank”), who is the father of Rahquel’s child. Beko testified that when Mel arrived, she and Brionna were outside on

the porch and Defendant, Rahquel and Jakobe were inside. Mel was very

angry and began arguing loudly with Beko, accusing her of purchasing a car

and using his name on the loan. Everyone inside her house heard the

argument and came to stand on the porch behind her. She stated that Mel

approached her from the ground and that she descended to a lower stair

nearer him. He pushed her, she fell and “the next thing I know, AP

[Defendant] had shot him [Mel] in the head.” She testified that her back was

hurt when she fell, but she did not suffer any further injury. She also

testified that Mel was unarmed, and she did not have any fear that he was

about to seriously hurt her. She stated that Defendant ran to the back yard

and never came back. She also stated that her brother ran away and never

came back.

Tina testified that she had gotten out of Rahquel’s truck upon arrival

at Beko’s house, but returned to it to make a phone call. She was still in the

truck when Mel and Tank arrived. When the argument began, she got out of

the vehicle and saw Rahquel, Brionna and Defendant standing on the porch

behind Beko. She testified that when the shoving began, she and Tank

rushed over to try to stop Mel and break up the argument. Beko was

approaching Mel, and Brionna and Rahquel were trying to pull her away.

Beko slipped and fell on her porch, and then a gunshot was fired. She

testified that she looked up and saw Defendant holding a gun and aiming it

right at Mel. She stated that Defendant ran out the back door and hopped the

fence behind the house. She testified that he was unarmed and that the only

thing he had taken out of the car with him was his phone, which he put in his

pocket. 2 Brionna testified that she had known Defendant for many years and

that he was like a brother to her. Her memory of the event differed slightly

from Beko’s in that she was standing between Beko and Mel when the shot

was fired. She stated that she did not see Defendant shoot Mel because Mel

was facing her, but after the gun was fired, she heard Defendant say, “No

male was gonna hit a female in front of him.” She testified that Mel was

unarmed and that she was not sure whether Beko’s life was in danger.

Rahquel came out of the house when she heard the argument. She

tried to break it up and was behind Beko on the stairs; but when Mel pushed

Beko, she stepped between them to stop him. She testified that when Beko

fell, she turned around to help Beko stand up and that was when Mel was

shot. She did not see Defendant shoot Mel, but she stated she knew he had

done it “because he was there.” She stated that Defendant left immediately

after Mel was shot.

Rahquel was cross-examined about her testimony at trial because

during her interview with the police, she protected Defendant, who was her

boyfriend at the time, and did not want anyone to get into trouble. However,

she stated that her testimony at trial was the true version of the facts.

Jakobe testified that when he heard the argument, he also went outside

and stood on the porch and recalled that Rahquel and Defendant rushed

outside with him. He stated that Defendant was standing right behind and to

the side of him on the porch, and he saw Defendant shoot Mel in the head.

He testified that Defendant had the gun in his possession when he walked

out of the house and that he “already pulled it out and had it coming already

out the door.” He also stated that Defendant said something, then fled

through the house into the back yard and jumped the fence. He followed 3 him; but after Defendant jumped the fence, he returned to the front of the

house and then left the scene before the police arrived.

Shreveport Police Detective Melvin Smith interviewed Tina, Beko,

Rahquel and Brionna at the police station, and Defendant was identified in a

photo lineup. Dr. Long Jin, the coroner, testified that the victim died from a

single gunshot wound to his right temple. One projectile was recovered from

his cerebellum during the autopsy.

Shreveport Police Corporal Jonathan Varnell investigated the crime

scene and located a single expended .380 caliber cartridge casing. Mel’s car

was searched, and his wallet, driver’s license and other cards were found on

the front driver’s side floorboard. Beko’s residence was searched and a

magazine of a rifle-style weapon with live rounds in it was recovered;

however, no firearms were recovered from inside the residence. A warrant

was issued for Defendant’s arrest.

Defendant was arrested on April 12, 2022, after a person called the

Shreveport Police Department and stated that a man was at her home, who

she believed had an outstanding warrant. The police went to that house and

were admitted by the person who had called. Defendant was found lying in

a bed, and a gun was retrieved from under the mattress, but it did not match

the murder weapon, which was never found.

A unanimous jury found Defendant guilty as charged of second

degree murder. A motion for new trial was filed and denied. Defendant was

sentenced to life in prison without benefit of parole, probation or suspension

of sentence. He filed a motion to reconsider sentence, and it was also

denied. Defendant appeals his conviction.

4 DISCUSSION

Defendant argues the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to

prove him guilty of the second degree murder of Mel. He contends that the

witnesses at trial gave contradictory evidence and that there was no physical

evidence corroborating their testimony. He further argues that the murder

could have been committed by Jakobe and that all the sisters framed him for

the murder in order to protect Jakobe from prosecution.

The state argues that the evidence at trial, including the testimony of

eyewitnesses, was sufficient to prove that Defendant shot and killed Mel and

did so with the specific intent to kill or inflict bodily harm. It contends that

the discrepancies in the testimony pointed out by Defendant are minor; and

on the most salient issue of who had the gun in his hand at the time the shot

was fired, all agreed it was Defendant. Considering the evidence in the light

most favorable to the prosecution, it asserts it proved Defendant guilty of

second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence

claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v.

Tate, 01-1658 (La. 5/20/03), 851 So. 2d 921, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905,

124 S. Ct. 1604, 158 L. Ed. 2d 248 (2004). This standard, now codified in

La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not afford the appellate court with a means to

substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder.

State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So. 2d 517; State v. Johnson,

55,254 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/9/23), 370 So. 3d 91. 5 Appellate courts neither assess the credibility of witnesses nor

reweigh evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d 442.

Rather, the reviewing court affords great deference to the jury’s decision to

accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part. State v.

Gilliam, 36,118 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/30/02), 827 So. 2d 508, writ denied,

02-3090 (La. 11/14/03), 858 So. 2d 422. Where there is conflicting

testimony concerning factual matters, the resolution of which depends upon

a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, the matter is one of the

weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. State v. Allen, 36,180 (La. App.

2 Cir. 9/18/02), 828 So. 2d 622, writ denied, 02-2595 (La. 3/28/03),

849 So. 2d 566, writ denied, 02-2997 (La. 6/27/03), 847 So. 2d 1255, cert.

denied, 540 U.S. 1185, 124 S. Ct. 1404, 158 L. Ed 2d 90 (2004).

Second degree murder is the killing of a human being when the

offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. La.

R.S. 14:30.1(A). Specific criminal intent is that state of mind that exists

when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the

prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act. La.

R.S. 14:10. Specific intent need not be proven as a fact; it may be inferred

from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant.

State v. Graham, 420 So. 2d 1126 (La. 1982). Specific intent to kill may be

inferred from a defendant’s act of pointing a gun and firing at a person.

State v. Seals, 95-0305 (La. 11/25/96), 684 So. 2d 368. It may also be

inferred from the extent and severity of the victim’s injuries and the

defendant’s use of a deadly weapon to produce those injuries. State v.

Jackson, 55,312 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/15/23), 374 So. 3d 354.

6 We find that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s

conviction for second degree murder. Every witness testified that he or she

saw Defendant shoot the unarmed victim or, alternatively, saw him holding

the gun pointed at the victim after the shot was fired. The discrepancies

between the testimonies of the various witnesses were extremely slight and

had no bearing on who was the perpetrator of the crime. The state proved

every element of the crime; and, therefore, it was entirely reasonable for the

jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed

second degree murder. For these reasons, the assignment of error is without

merit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence of

Defendant Archille Parrel Holmes, Jr.

AFFIRMED.