Judgment rendered February 28, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,491-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
LESTER JAY RAMSEY, JR. Appellant
Appealed from the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana Trial Court No. 20CR001449
Honorable Bernard Scott Leehy, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Holli Herrle-Castillo
ROBERT STEPHEN TEW Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
HOLLY A. CHAMBERS-JONES KALEE M. MOORE GARY A. BLAYLOCK Assistant District Attorneys
Before STEPHENS, THOMPSON, and ROBINSON, JJ. THOMPSON, J.
Lester Ramsey appeals his unanimous jury conviction for second
degree murder and resulting life sentence for the killing of an acquaintance
whom he shot twice in the back of the head as the unarmed victim attempted
to crawl away from him. After killing the victim, the defendant then
wrapped the body in blankets, loaded it into his mother’s truck, and dumped
it into an alley in town. Following a police investigation, search of the
defendant’s residence, and several interviews, Ramsey disclosed the location
of the victim’s body, which had been missing for two weeks after the killing.
The defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he
had not acted in self-defense and that the trial court erred in not declaring a
mistrial. Finding these arguments unpersuasive, and for the reasons set forth
below, we affirm his conviction.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 20, 2020, Lester Ramsey (“Ramsey”) was at home with
his girlfriend, Journei Cyrus (“Cyrus”), who was eating her dinner in the
bedroom, when his friend Cadarion Buggs (“Buggs”) arrived at about 11:00
p.m. Buggs and Ramsey were in the living room, watching a movie,
smoking marijuana and talking when they got into an argument after
Ramsey asked Buggs to tell him who was responsible for a burglary that had
occurred previously at his home. Ramsey believed Buggs knew who had
robbed his home and taken his gaming system, television, money, and
clothing. The burglary was never reported to the police. Ramsey later stated
that he was angry because everyone, including Buggs, had been lying about
the burglary. Ramsey testified that he hit Buggs, and they began wrestling. Ramsey
threw Buggs to the floor, removing a gun from Buggs’ pocket during the
struggle. Buggs attempted to leave the room, and Ramsey thought he was
going to get a gun that Ramsey had hidden in the couch in the adjoining
room. Buggs was crawling away when Ramsey shot at him four times,
striking Buggs twice in the back of the head and instantly killing him.
Faced with a dead body in his apartment, rather than call an
ambulance or the police, Ramsey borrowed his mother’s SUV, wrapped
Buggs’ body in blankets and a rug, put it in the vehicle, and drove around
until he found an alley in which he could dump it. After discarding Buggs’
body, Ramsey returned to his home and mopped up the blood with a bleach
solution. Neither Ramsey nor Cyrus ever contacted law enforcement about
the shooting of Buggs or disposal of his body.
Buggs was reported missing by his mother approximately two weeks
later. Detective Justin Cummings, with the West Monroe Police
Department, spoke with Buggs’ mother and aunt, who gave him information
they learned about Buggs’ disappearance. This information led Detective
Cummings to do a “knock and talk” at Ramsey’s home. Detective
Cummings described a “knock and talk” as a procedure by which detectives
knock on the door of a suspect and speak with whoever answers the door to
further their investigation. When Detective Cummings knocked on
Ramsey’s door, Ramsey answered and was mopping the floors of his home.
Detective Cummings asked if Ramsey would come to the detectives’ office
for an interview. The officers got permission to look for Buggs in Ramsey’s
home and then Ramsey accompanied them to their office for an interview.
2 Detective Cummings testified that the first time he Mirandized
Ramsey was a by verbal advisement at his home. Detective Cummings
Mirandized Ramsey again when he arrived at the station for the first time to
speak with detectives. Ramsey was given a written copy of his Miranda1
rights, the detective went over each Miranda right with him, and then
Ramsey signed a waiver of the rights form. The first interview was
conducted on March 4, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. Detective Cummings sought and
obtained a search warrant for Ramsey’s home after the first interview.
Utilizing the search warrant, the police gained entry into Ramsey’s
home. After discovering multiple areas of blood, the detective went to speak
with Ramsey again. At 7:37 p.m. on March 4, 2020, Detective Cummings
again provided Ramsey with his Miranda rights, and Ramsey signed the
second waiver form. Ramsey stated that the blood spatter in his house was
present because he shot a dog in his home and then dragged the body
outside. Police officers found the remains of an animal outside the home but
did not believe that the blood evidence matched an animal being shot. At
the beginning of the interview, Ramsey stated that Buggs was trying to help
him figure out who had robbed his house. By the end of the interview,
Ramsey admitted that he believed Buggs was involved in the robbery and
that they had engaged in an argument with him about it. Ramsey stated in
this interview that he hit Buggs with a hammer. Additionally, Detective
Cummings testified:
Q: Why did you ask Mr. Ramsey why he said the phrase ‘body’s whereabouts,’ why did that stand out to you?
A: That was the first time he did not refer to Mr. Buggs by his name. He referred to him as ‘the body.’ That generally to me
1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). 3 would indicate that the person is no longer with us and it’s just a body.
Q: And at that point you still had not located Cadarion’s body, right?
A: That’s correct.
After the second interview, detectives went to speak with Ramsey’s
girlfriend, Cyrus, and she told them that Ramsey had been using his
mother’s truck on the night of the incident. The police got a warrant to
search the vehicle and then Detective Cummings went to speak to Ramsey
again. They obtained another Miranda wavier from Ramsey prior to the
third interview. During the third interview, on March 4, 2020 at
approximately 9:51 p.m., Ramsey revealed the location of Buggs’ body, and
police were able to locate his remains, 13 days after he had been killed.
An arrest warrant was issued for Ramsey, and Cpl. Nick Olinger
transported Ramsey to the Ouachita Parish Correctional Center. During the
car ride, Ramsey asked Cpl. Olinger about his charges and the location of his
phone. Cpl. Olinger read Ramsey his charges from the probable cause
affidavit and told him that the detectives had probably put his phone into
evidence. Ramsey asked Cpl. Olinger if he could talk to the detectives so he
could get numbers from the phone. Cpl. Olinger said he would check and
asked Ramsey if he knew him, meaning the detective. Ramsey said that he
did not, but then asked whether Cpl. Olinger was talking about the detective
or “the dead guy.” Cpl. Olinger clarified he was talking about the detective.
Ramsey then confessed to Cpl. Olinger that he and Buggs were friends and
had gotten into a fight. He admitted to rolling his body into a rug, placing it
in his mom’s car, and dumping it. Cpl. Olinger asked how he decided where
to leave the body, and Ramsey responded he drove around until he found a 4 “good spot.” Cpl. Olinger did not read Ramsey his Miranda rights before or
during the car ride.
Two days later, Detective Cummings went to the correctional facility
and interviewed Ramsey again. He again advised Ramsey of his Miranda
rights prior to this interview, and Ramsey signed a new waiver of rights
form. During this interview, Ramsey told Detective Cummings that he shot
Buggs because Buggs said he was going to shoot him and he was afraid, for
the first time raising any claims of self-defense or justification.
A jury trial was held on this matter in Monroe, Louisiana, on October
17-20, 2022. At trial, Detective Cummings testified about his investigation
and all of his interactions with Ramsey. Officer Brian May also testified
that he assisted with the crime scene. Ramsey’s girlfriend, Cyrus, testified
that she spent the night at Ramsey’s house the night of the confrontation
between Buggs and Ramsey. At one point, she heard two loud pops, and she
called her mother to come pick her up. Ramsey told her to lock the door.
When she left the house, she could see a bleach bucket with brown, dirty
water, and a rug and blanket were missing from the home. When she was
leaving the home, Ramsey told her that he got his mother’s truck stuck at the
levee.
Cpl. Matthew Gilliland, with the West Monroe Police Department,
testified that he processed Ramsey’s mother’s truck. Cpl. Anthony Walker,
who works for the crime scene investigation unit of the Monroe Police
Department, testified about processing the crime scene in the alleyway
where Buggs’ body was discovered. Also testifying was Dr. Frank Peretti, a
forensic pathologist, who testified that he performed the autopsy on Buggs,
concluding the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head. 5 Cpl. Olinger, with the West Monroe Police Department, testified
regarding what was said during his car ride with Ramsey, as described
above. After questioning by the State was complete and the witness was
tendered, defense counsel requested that the jury be removed from the
courtroom. Defense counsel then argued to the trial court that the testimony
elicited from Cpl. Olinger was an interrogation that was not free and
voluntary and moved for a mistrial. The trial court noted that defense
counsel did not make a contemporaneous objection to the testimony, and the
mistrial was denied.
When the jury returned and the trial resumed, Ramsey testified on his
own behalf. Ramsey described for the jury the prior burglary of his home
and stated that he did not call the police but did ask his friends about the
robbery. He testified he considered Buggs a good friend. Despite that
friendship, the two began fighting because Ramsey was angry that Buggs
had not found the person who broke into his home. Ramsey testified that
they were arguing, then he got in Buggs’ face, and hit him. The two men
began wrestling, and Ramsey threw him to the ground. Buggs began
crawling toward the living room. Ramsey testified that Buggs was known to
carry a gun and had a gun in his pocket while at Ramsey’s home. Ramsey
testified that he took the gun away from Buggs, and “he started like crawling
like trying to run, get away from me towards the living room.” Ramsey
testified that when Buggs was crawling away from him, he “just started
shooting.”
Ramsey stated that there was also another gun in the living room, the
direction Buggs was crawling, but admits that he did not know if Buggs was
trying to get the gun. He testified, “I got scared and I just started shooting 6 it.” Ramsey testified how he then wrapped up and loaded Buggs’ body in
his mother’s car, and drove around for about 10 minutes. After finding a
suitable alleyway, Ramsey testified he dumped the body and then returned
home to begin cleaning up the scene. Ramsey testified that he did not call
the police because he did not want to go to jail or for his stepson to see what
he had done.
After deliberation, the jury unanimously found Ramsey guilty of
second degree murder. He was sentenced to life in prison, without the
possibility of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, as mandated by
Louisiana statute. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Ramsey asserts two assignments of error regarding his conviction for
second degree murder, being the insufficiency of evidence and the failure to
grant a mistrial.
First Assignment of Error: The evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction for second degree murder.
In his first assignment of error, Ramsey argues that the evidence was
insufficient to uphold his conviction for second degree murder. Ramsey
contends that the evidence established that he acted in self-defense and was
in fear for his life, which he argued at trial and which issue was presented to
the jury for consideration. In the alternative, he argues that the evidence
established that he committed the offense in sudden passion or heat of blood,
warranting the responsive verdict of manslaughter.
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
7 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 legislatively
embodied in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with
a vehicle 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.
Dotie, 43,819 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/14/09), 1 So. 3d 833, writ denied, 09-0310
(La. 11/6/09), 21 So. 3d 297.
The trier of fact makes credibility determinations and may accept or
reject the testimony of any witness. State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00),
775 So. 2d 1022, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840, 121 S. Ct. 104, 148 L. Ed. 2d
62 (2000). The appellate court does not assess credibility or reweigh the
evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d 442; State v.
Green, 49,741 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/15/15), 164 So. 3d 331. A reviewing court
accords great deference to a jury’s decision to accept or reject the testimony
of a witness in whole or in part. State v. Jackson, 53,497 (La. App. 2 Cir.
5/20/20), 296 So. 3d 1156.
Relevant to this case, second degree murder is “the killing of a human
being ... [w]hen the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great
bodily harm.” La. R.S. 14:30.1(A)(1). Specific intent is that state of mind
which 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(1). Specific intent may be inferred from the
circumstances surrounding the offense and the conduct of the defendant.
State v. Bishop, 01-2548 (La. 1/14/03), 835 So. 2d 434. Specific intent to 8 kill may also be inferred from the extent and severity of the victim’s injuries.
State v. Bull, 53,470 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/20), 296 So. 3d 1175, writ denied,
20-00797 (La. 12/22/20), 307 So. 3d 1040.
La. R.S. 14:31(A)(1) states that manslaughter is:
A homicide which would be murder under ... Article 30.1 (second degree murder), but the offense is committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection. Provocation shall not reduce a homicide to manslaughter if the jury finds that the offender’s blood had actually cooled, or that an average person’s blood would have cooled, at the time the offense was committed[.]
A defendant who claims provocation as a means of reducing murder
to manslaughter bears the burden of proving these elements by a
preponderance of the evidence. State v. McGee, 51,977 (La. App. 2 Cir.
4/3/19), 316 So. 3d 1196, writ denied, 19-00761 (La. 11/19/19), 282 So. 3d
1066. Provocation and the time for cooling are questions for the jury to
determine according to the standard of the average or ordinary person. Id.,
citing State v. Leger, 05-0011 (La. 7/10/06), 936 So. 2d 108, cert. denied,
549 U.S. 1221, 127 S. Ct. 1279, 167 L. Ed. 2d 100 (2007).
“Sudden passion” and “heat of blood,” which distinguish
manslaughter from homicide, are not elements of the offense, but mitigatory
factors exhibiting a degree of culpability less than is present when the
homicide is committed without them. State v. Tompkins, 403 So. 2d 644
(La. 1981); State v. Arnold, 30,282 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/21/98), 706 So. 2d
578; State v. Armstrong, 32,279 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/22/99), 743 So. 2d 284,
writ denied, 99-3151 (La. 4/7/00), 759 So. 2d 92. A defendant who shows
by a preponderance of the evidence that these mitigatory factors are present
is entitled to the verdict of manslaughter. State v. Lombard, 486 So. 2d 106
9 (La. 1986). However, the defendant is not obligated to establish the factors
affirmatively; instead, the jury may infer them from the overall evidence
presented. State v. Jackson, 34,076 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/6/00), 774 So. 2d
1046. The reviewing court’s function is to determine whether a rational trier
of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, could
have found that the mitigatory factors were not established by a
preponderance of the evidence. State v. Lombard, supra.
Provocative acts held to rise to the level of mitigating conduct involve
physical threats or actions on the part of the victim. State v. Heard, 22-378
(La. App. 3 Cir. 11/23/22), 353 So. 3d 326, writ denied, 22-01829 (La.
4/18/23), 359 So. 3d 508. Mere words or gestures, however offensive or
insulting, will not reduce homicide from murder to manslaughter. State v.
Mitchell, 39,202 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/15/04), 889 So. 2d 1257, writ denied,
05-0132 (La. 4/29/05), 901 So. 2d 1063.
When a defendant raises self-defense as an issue, the burden is on the
State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not
perpetrated in self-defense. In determining whether a defendant had a
reasonable belief that the killing was necessary, factors that may be
considered include the excitement and confusion of the situation, the
possibility of using force short of killing, and the defendant’s knowledge of
the assailant’s bad character. The question on a sufficiency of the evidence
review is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable
doubt that the homicide was not committed in self-defense or in the defense
of others. State v. Lensey, 50,242 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/18/15), 182 So. 3d
1059, writ denied, 15-2344 (La. 3/14/16), 189 So. 3d 1066. 10 We find there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Ramsey
of second degree murder. The evidence is undisputed that Ramsey shot at
Buggs four times, striking him twice in the back of the head, as Buggs
crawled away from him. While he may have been crawling in the direction
of the living room, where Ramsey asserts another gun was located, Ramsey
admitted during cross-examination that he was not sure where Buggs was
going or what he was going to do. While the two men had been arguing and
wrestling prior to the shooting, the evidence revealed that Buggs, who was
5’2”, was on the ground, unarmed, and attempting to get away from
Ramsey, who is 6’1”, when he was shot twice in the back of the head.
Ramsey could not answer why he shot four rounds or why he continued to
shoot at Buggs after Buggs had been hit with the first bullet. This and other
evidence in the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt
that the homicide was not committed in self-defense or in the defense of
others.
Furthermore, any rational trier of fact could have found that the
mitigating factors of “sudden passion” and “heat of blood” were not
established by a preponderance of the evidence. While Ramsey testified that
he and Buggs had an argument, that argument was based on Ramsey’s anger
that Buggs may have had something to do with the burglary at his home.
Moreover, Ramsey’s testimony reveals that he was the aggressor in the
situation. He struck Buggs, who was almost a full foot shorter than him,
knocking him to the ground. He took Buggs’ gun from his pocket and then
used the weapon to shoot Buggs twice in the back of the head as the much
smaller man, already on the ground and facing away from him, attempted to 11 crawl away. This Court is not convinced that these were circumstances
sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of their self-control or cool
reflection such that Ramsey should have been convicted of manslaughter
rather than second degree murder.
Considering the above, Ramsey’s first assignment of error is without
merit.
Second Assignment of Error: The trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial.
In his second assignment of error, Ramsey argues that the trial court
erred in failing to declare a mistrial after the testimony of Cpl. Olinger
regarding his conversation with Ramsey. Ramsey argues that his confession
to Cpl. Olinger during the car ride to the correctional center was a custodial
interrogation and he should have been read his Miranda rights prior to
speaking. Ramsey notes that the trial court only denied his motion for
mistrial because his trial counsel did not timely object to Cpl. Olinger’s
testimony. He asserts that Cpl. Olinger’s testimony before the jury was so
prejudicial that the trial was unfair and resulted in a suspect verdict.
La. C. Cr. P. art. 775 provides that a mistrial may be ordered, and in a
jury case, the jury dismissed, when “prejudicial conduct in or outside the
courtroom makes it impossible for the defendant to obtain a fair trial, or
when authorized by Article 770 or 771.”
In the case sub justice, the alleged inappropriate testimony came
during the State’s questioning of Cpl. Olinger. In pertinent part, Cpl.
Olinger testified:
Q: Okay. Did he say anything else about what – why he – why anything happened between him and the victim?
12 A: Yes. He said that he began to suspect the victim of stealing some of his property, and he asked him about it. He told me the victim would never admit to it and began disrespecting him. He said a fight began. That he rolled the victim in a rug. Placed him in a vehicle and dumped his body in an alley.
Q: Okay. So, he told you there was a fight between himself and the victim?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And then he went straight to talking about robbing -- rolling the victim in a rug?
Q: He did not say how the victim ended up in that rug?
A: No, ma’am.
Q: Okay. Was – did – did he say anything else after that?
A: So, after he gave that statement, I asked how he decided where to leave the body?
…
A: He said that he didn’t know the area well, and that and I’ll quote it again, he said, he drove around until he found a quote, good spot, end quote.
After this testimony, defense counsel requested that the jury be
removed and asked for a mistrial because Cpl. Olinger’s testimony described
a non-Mirandized interrogation of Ramsey.
Before the state may introduce a confession into evidence, it must
demonstrate that the statement was free and voluntary and not the product of
fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises. La.
R.S. 15:451; La. C. Cr. P. art. 703 D; State v. Ashley, 44,655 (La. App. 2
Cir. 9/23/09), 22 So. 3d 1045, writ denied, 09-2305 (La. 4/23/10), 34 So. 3d
271; State v. Freeman, 45,127 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/14/10), 34 So. 3d 541, writ
denied, 10-1043 (La. 11/24/10), 50 So. 3d 827. If a statement is the product
13 of custodial interrogation, the State additionally must show that the person
was advised before questioning of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona,
supra. A trial court’s finding as to the free and voluntary nature of a
statement carries great weight and will not be disturbed unless not supported
by the evidence. State v. Freeman, supra. Testimony of the interviewing
police officer alone may be sufficient to prove that the statement was given
freely and voluntarily. State v. Ashley, supra.
Spontaneous and voluntary statements made while the defendant is in
custody and not given as a result of police interrogation or compelling
influence are admissible as evidence even when made without the Miranda
warning. State v. Caston, 40,054 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/28/05), 912 So. 2d 413.
A trial court’s determination on the credibility and weight of testimony
relating to the voluntariness of a confession will not be overturned unless
clearly contrary to the evidence. Id.
In the present matter, the trial court did not rule on the free and
voluntary nature of Ramsey’s confession to Cpl. Olinger. Instead, the trial
court ruled that counsel’s objection was not made contemporaneously and
noted that had defense counsel objected at the beginning of Cpl. Olinger’s
testimony, he could have prevented the jury from hearing the testimony. For
this reason, the court denied the motion for mistrial.
The determination as to whether a remark has resulted in denying a
defendant a fair trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a
denial of a motion for mistrial will not be disturbed on appeal absent an
abuse of that discretion. State v. Smith, 418 So. 2d 515 (La. 1982); State v.
Bean, 582 So. 2d 947 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1991), writ denied, 586 So.2d 567
(La. 1991); State v. Matthews, 552 So. 2d 590 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1989), writ 14 denied, 559 So. 2d 137 (La. 1990); State v. Fielding, 37,943 (La. App. 2 Cir.
12/10/03), 862 So. 2d 420, writ denied, 01-0249 (La. 12/14/05), 889 So. 2d
256.
Even if a mistrial was warranted under article 770, 771, or 775, the
failure to grant a mistrial would not result in an automatic reversal of
defendant’s conviction, but would be a trial error subject to the harmless
error analysis on appeal. State v. Smith, 43,136 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/23/08),
981 So. 2d 200; State v. Bradley, 43,593 (La. App. 2 Cir. 10/29/08), 997 So.
2d 694, writ denied, 08-2997 (La. 9/18/09), 17 So. 3d 384, cert. denied, 559
U.S. 1068, 130 S. Ct. 2093, 176 L. Ed. 2d 723 (2010). Trial error is
harmless where the verdict rendered is surely unattributable to the error. Id.
We find that the trial court’s denial of the motion for mistrial was not
in error. The record reflects the fact that Ramsey had been read and waived
his Miranda rights three times before speaking to Cpl. Olinger. Ramsey was
asking questions of Cpl. Olinger and any statements he made appear to be
unsolicited statements against interest. Ramsey knew Cpl. Olinger was a
police officer and willingly initiated and engaged in the conversation with
him.
Moreover, the statements made by Ramsey when speaking to Cpl.
Olinger were later confirmed by Ramsey himself, in his own testimony at
trial before the jury. Ramsey himself testified that he and Buggs were
friends, that “we had a little fight,” and “I got in his face and then I hit him
and then we was wrestling [sic]. I threw him to the ground.” Ramsey also
testified:
Q: Okay. And did you in fact put Mr. Buggs in your mother’s car?
15 A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what did you do after that?
A: I just remember – drove around for about ten minutes or so trying to find somewhere. That’s it.
Q: So, you did in fact leave the body in Monroe?
A: Yes, sir.
Finally, Ramsey testified:
Q: Why did you put so many blankets on him?
A: I don’t know.
We find no abuse of discretion or reversible error in refusing to
declare a mistrial on the testimony of a police officer regarding the
statements made by Ramsey that were later confirmed by Ramsey himself in
his testimony before the jury. This assignment of error is without merit.
ERROR PATENT
A review of the record reveals that the trial court failed to state that
Ramsey’s life sentence must be served at hard labor. The failure to include
the requirement that the life imprisonment be served at hard labor is an
illegally lenient sentence. An illegal sentence may be corrected at any time
by the court that imposed the sentence of by an appellate court on review.
La. C. Cr. art. 882(A). Further, the appellate court may notice sentencing
errors as error patent. State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La. 11/28/01), 800 So. 2d
790. Because La. R.S. 14:30.1 is a mandatory felony, requiring any
sentence to be served at hard labor, the error is harmless and self-correcting.
State v. Evans, 51,811 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/18), 245 So. 3d 1112, writ
denied, 18-0281 (La. 11/20/18), 256 So. 3d 992.
16 CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Lester Jay Ramsey, Jr.’s conviction is
affirmed.