State of Louisiana v. Trevarious Winslow

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: August 28, 2024
• Docket: 55,793-KA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered August 28, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,793-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

TREVARIOUS WINSLOW Appellant

Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 372,580

Honorable Donald E. Hathaway, Jr., Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Douglas Lee Harville

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

JASON W. WALTMAN REBECCA ARMAND EDWARDS COURTNEY RAY Assistant District Attorneys

Before THOMPSON, ROBINSON, and ELLENDER, JJ. THOMPSON, J.

Two people were killed, and another seriously wounded, from a brawl

and gunfight between club security and a local rapper’s entourage that

occurred outside a lounge in Shreveport, Louisiana. The defendant,

Trevarious Winslow, was a security guard that night and suffered four

gunshot wounds but survived. He was later charged with two counts of

second degree murder and ultimately convicted by a jury of the lesser

charges of two counts of manslaughter. The trial court sentenced him to

concurrent sentences of 30 years at hard labor on each charge. On appeal,

and for the first time, Winslow asserts he acted in self-defense on the night

of the shooting, and that as a first-time offender his sentences are

constitutionally excessive under the facts and circumstances of that chaotic

night. For reasons more fully detailed below, we affirm his convictions and

sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 9, 2019, two individuals suffered fatal gunshot wounds at the

Royalty Cigar Bar & Hookah Lounge in Shreveport, Louisiana. On

December 18, 2019, a grand jury returned a two-count indictment for second

degree murder against Trevarious Winslow, who was working as a security

guard at the location and who suffered four gunshot wounds. Winslow pled

not guilty.

At Winslow’s trial in January 2023, Shreveport Police Department

officers testified and described a chaotic scene when they arrived to find the

two victims, Chasmine Walters (a club security guard) and Lee’Jerryius

Baines (a member of a local rapper’s entourage), on the ground outside the

club bleeding and unconscious. Winslow was found bleeding inside an office in the back of the club; he had been shot four times during what can

only be described as a hail of bullets in a shootout with at least 13 shots fired

by at least two different weapons. Officer Francis Mogavero testified that

none of the approximately 40 witnesses present at the shooting scene that

night claimed to have seen anything, which, sadly, the officer described as a

typical response when investigating shootings.

Detective Taywania Jackson learned during the investigation that a

verbal altercation had become physical and escalated to the shooting. Det.

Jackson testified that potential witnesses were not interested in providing

their names or information. She interviewed two Royalty Lounge security

guards and obtained surveillance video from the club. She identified the

defendant, Winslow, as at least one of the shooters there that night through

her investigation.

Detective Kenny Thompson testified regarding the surveillance video

from the club, which showed people running toward the door of the club at

the time of the altercation, presumably to see what was happening. Det.

Thompson also identified Winslow in the video as a male wearing pink

shorts and a white t-shirt. Winslow was shown walking inside the club and

then exiting shortly before the people behind the bar dropped to the floor in

response to hearing the gunshots.

Following the night of the shooting, Winslow was hospitalized for 26

days for his four gunshot wounds. After his discharge from the hospital, he

was interviewed by Det. Thompson at a home in Natchitoches. During that

interview Winslow told Det. Thompson that he and some friends who

worked together as security for the Royalty Lounge had been at the

Horseshoe’s hotel pool earlier on the day of the shooting. Winslow was not 2 scheduled to work the evening of the shooting; however, he decided to

volunteer to help the friends with security that night. That evening while he

was working security at the club, Winslow exchanged words with a man

who knocked over the rope outside the club; the man was known to Winslow

as a member of a local rapper’s entourage. Winslow was then hit by another

man, whom he later identified as a local rapper, Kenyon Frazier a/k/a Green

Eyez.1 Winslow went inside to notify the club’s manager, Brandon Davis,

and when he returned outside, the shooting started. Winslow told Det.

Thompson that he did not see who shot him. Interestingly, at that time

Winslow denied shooting anyone, and he denied having a gun.

Photographs introduced into evidence at trial showed Winslow’s pink

shorts covered in blood, as well as three bullets found in the pockets of those

pink shorts. Additionally, there were photographs of a blood trail and blood

on other items in the office where Winslow was found injured after the

shooting. Officer Amber Futch located a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson

firearm, covered in blood, in the top drawer of a filing cabinet in that office.

Photographs of the bloody gun were also entered into evidence.

The North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory (“Crime Lab”)

prepared a report regarding a DNA analysis performed on the blood found

on the Smith and Wesson firearm found by Officer Futch. The report

provided that a blood sample from Winslow matched the blood that was

found on the firearm. The record also provides that the police investigation

determined a fingerprint found on the .40 caliber Smith & Wesson firearm

matched Winslow’s left thumb.

1 Frazier a/k/a Green Eyez did not testify at trial, because he could not be located. 3 A certified report prepared by the North Louisiana Crime Lab also

analyzed the bloody .40 caliber Smith and Wesson firearm. The ballistics

report provided that five of the 13 shots fired during the shootout came from

the Smith & Wesson and concluded that the bullets that killed both the

victims, Walters and Baines, were fired from the .40 caliber Smith &

Wesson firearm connected to Winslow.

Brandon Davis, the Royalty Lounge manager, testified that the

security guards are not allowed to have guns. Brandon insisted he did not

see anyone with a weapon and did not see Winslow outside of the club

during the fighting. Brandon testified he found Winslow in the office

bleeding and gasping for air. Brandon’s wife, Monique Davis, testified that

Winslow was not on the schedule to work the evening of the shooting. She

further testified that Winslow was outside, ran past her toward the fight, and

then shots rang out. Monique did not see Winslow with a gun that night and

could not say where the initial shots came from.

Winslow did not testify at his trial, either by his own decision or under

advice of counsel. By joint stipulation, evidence regarding his injuries and

medical treatment was introduced and read to the jury. As indicated above,

Winslow sustained four gunshot wounds and spent 26 days in the hospital.

Defense counsel argued a theory during closing arguments that Winslow

was shot as he ran to help his friend in the fight and asserted that Winslow

did not have a gun and did not shoot.

On January 12, 2023, the jury returned responsive verdicts finding

Winslow guilty of manslaughter on each count. On March 28, 2023, the

trial court denied a post-verdict judgment of acquittal asserting that the State

failed to prove Winslow fired the shots that killed the victims. On March 4 30, 2023, the trial court sentenced Winslow to 30 years at hard labor on each

count, ordered the sentences to run concurrently, and that he receive credit

for time served. A motion to reconsider sentence was denied on April 24,

2023. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Winslow asserts two assignments of error.

Assignment of Error No. 1: The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Winslow shot Ms. Walters or Mr. Baines. In the alternative, the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Ms. Walters or Mr. Baines were not shot in self-defense. Given these facts, the evidence was insufficient to prove Mr. Winslow was guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt.

On that fateful night, Winslow, Walters, and Baines were all shot

multiple times during the shootout between club security and Green Eyez’

entourage. Winslow notes that during the exchange of gunshots, he was shot

four times. A gun that the State linked to Winslow through fingerprint and

blood evidence was fired 5 times, which killed Walters and Baines. The gun

or guns that injured Winslow was/were fired at least 8 times, based on the

number of shell casings recovered at the scene. Winslow asserts that the

State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Winslow fired the shots

that killed Walters and Baines. Alternatively, Winslow asserts that given the

murderous reputation, violent conduct, and the shots fired by Green Eyez

and his entourage, that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that Walters and Baines were not shot in self-defense.

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.

5 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 appellate courts with a means to substitute

their own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder. State v.

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

The Jackson standard is applicable to cases involving both direct and

circumstantial evidence. An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of the

evidence in such cases must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by

viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When

the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct

evidence and inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be sufficient

for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that

defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. State v. Sutton,

436 So. 2d 471 (La. 1983).

Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and

circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred

according to reason and common experience. State v. Broome, 49,004 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 4/9/14), 136 So. 3d 979, writ denied, 14-0990 (La. 1/16/15), 157

So. 3d 1127. If a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that

evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S.

15:438; Broome, supra; State v. Gipson, 45,121 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/14/10),

34 So. 3d 1090, writ denied, 10-1019 (La. 11/24/10), 50 So. 3d 827.

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 6 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, 02-2997 (La. 6/27/03), 847 So.

2d 1255.

In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with

physical evidence, the testimony of one witness, if believed by the trier of

fact, is sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion. State v. Johnson,

55,254 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/9/23), 370 So. 3d 91; State v. Coffey, 54,729 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 9/21/22), 349 So. 3d 647, writ denied, 22-01574 (La. 12/20/22),

352 So. 3d 89.

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. Johnson, supra; State v. Lensey, 50,242 (La. App. 2 Cir.

7 11/18/15), 182 So. 3d 1059, writ denied, 15-2344 (La. 3/14/16), 189 So. 3d

1066.

We note that Winslow did not claim self-defense at his trial; he

repeatedly denied firing a gun during the shootout. Therefore, the State did

not bear the burden of proving that the homicides were not committed in

self-defense. The physical evidence, including the firearm, blood, and DNA

evidence, as well as the circumstantial evidence, including the surveillance

footage and testimony of witnesses and law enforcement officers, refuted

Winslow’s claims that he was not the shooter. With all the evidence viewed

in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the State negated any

reasonable probability of Winslow’s misidentification as the shooter. We

find that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable

doubt that Winslow was guilty of manslaughter. Accordingly, this

assignment of error is without merit.

Assignment of Error No. 2: Mr. Winslow had no prior felony convictions, had a consistent work history, was working security at the time of the shooting, was responding to a violent confrontation just outside the club, and was aware the confrontation involved Green Eyes, a rapper with a reputation for deadly violence. Moreover, one alleged victim was a member of Green Eyez’ entourage, which was engaged in a violent altercation with club security. Finally, Mr. Winslow was shot, almost fatally, by a member of Green Eyez’ entourage during this incident. Accordingly, the trial court erred by imposing an unconstitutionally harsh and excessive sentence, 30 years of imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently.

Winslow argues that given the unique facts of this case and

Winslow’s first-felony offender status, the trial court erred by imposing an

unreasonably excessive sentence. The State notes that the trial court

thoroughly considered aggravating and mitigating factors under Article

894.1(B). The trial court found that Winslow knowingly created a risk of

8 death or great bodily harm to more than one person, the offense resulted in

permanent injury to the victims or their families, he used a dangerous

weapon, and the offense involved multiple victims. Winslow fired at least

five rounds, killing two young people (ages 22 and 29). The trial court did

acknowledge one mitigating factor in sentencing – the possibility that

Winslow acted under strong provocation. As the claim of self-defense was

never asserted at trial, the jury and trial court were only presented with

Winslow’s consistent denials of being involved in the shootings, rather than

any explanation of how his being shot may have impacted him in returning

fire or accidentally striking his coworker. This court cannot create a

possible narrative to explain the occurrences that night – resulting in the

death of two people – that the defendant, himself, never asserted or

explained.

The law concerning excessive sentences is well-settled; claims are

reviewed by examining whether the trial court adequately considered the

guidelines established in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and whether the sentence is

constitutionally excessive. State v. Vanhorn, 52,583 (La. App. 2 Cir.

4/10/19), 268 So. 3d 357, writ denied, 19-00745 (La. 11/19/19), 282 So. 3d

1065. A review of the sentencing guidelines does not require a listing of

every aggravating or mitigating circumstance. Id.

A sentence violates La. Const. art. I, § 20 if it is grossly out of

proportion to the seriousness of the offense or nothing more than a

purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. O’Neal,

55,559 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/28/24), 381 So. 3d 273; State v. McKeever, 55,260

(La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/23), 371 So. 3d 1156. To constitute an excessive

sentence, a reviewing court must find that the penalty is so grossly 9 disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock the sense of justice

or that the sentence makes no reasonable contribution to acceptable penal

goals and, therefore, is nothing more than the needless imposition of pain

and suffering. State v. Griffin, 14-1214 (La. 10/14/15), 180 So. 3d 1262;

State v. Efferson, 52,306 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/14/18), 259 So. 3d 1153, writ

denied, 18-2052 (La. 4/15/19), 267 So. 3d 1131. The trial court has wide

discretion in the imposition of sentences within the statutory limits and such

sentences should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest

abuse of that discretion. State v. Griffin, supra; State v. Trotter, 54,496 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 6/29/22), 342 So. 3d 1116. On review, an appellate court does

not determine whether another sentence may have been more appropriate,

but whether the trial court abused its discretion. State v. O’Neal, supra;

State v. McKeever, supra.

La. R.S. 14:31(B) provides, in pertinent part, that a person found

guilty of manslaughter “[s]hall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than

forty years.” The trial court here was well familiar with the facts of this

case, as the judge presided over both Winslow’s trial and the sentencing

hearing. The record indicates that the trial court thoroughly considered the

sentencing factors set forth in Article 894.1. The trial court noted one

relevant mitigating factor, acknowledging that Winslow acted under strong

provocation on the night of the shooting. The record contains a written

statement from Winslow in the presentence investigation report; Winslow

maintains that he did not fire a weapon on the evening of the incident.

However, the trial court clearly contrasted that statement with the evidence

in the record showing that Winslow did in fact fire a gun that evening, and

that bullets from the gun he fired killed two individuals. 10 Appellate counsel, unenviably faced with a client who consistently

denied possessing or firing a weapon on the night of the shooting, directs

this court’s focus on the length of Winslow’s sentences to the

understandable chaos which had erupted at the scene on the night of the

shooting. Winslow argues on appeal there may well have been an

explanation of the events that unfolded that night that would justify a jury

finding he acted in self-defense. Winslow, after conclusion of the trial and

imposition of sentences, is now asking this Court for consideration in

reviewing those sentences by asserting he fired the weapon in self-defense

after being shot and certainly never intended to shoot his coworker. The

appropriate opportunity for explaining why he should not be tried,

convicted, and sentenced for the two deaths for which he is responsible

would have been before and during trial.

Winslow has consistently denied shooting anyone that night, from his

initial interview with law enforcement through his letter to the court for

consideration of sentencing after his conviction. We refuse to modify the

lawful sentences on grounds that lend themselves more to a claim of factual

innocence or self-defense, rather than excessiveness. As such, we find that

Winslow’s concurrent sentences of 30 years, well below the maximum

sentence range of 40 years, are not constitutionally excessive, and the trial

court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him to midrange sentences

for two manslaughters.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Trevarious Winslow’s convictions and

sentences are affirmed.

AFFIRMED. 11