Judge rules against granting new trial to Samuel Anderson

Samuel Anderson’s motion for a new trial has been denied by Judge Chuck West.
Attorney Alex “Sonny” Chapman filed the motion in on behalf of his client after a Department of Justice investigation into the Ville Platte Police Department and the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office revealed that an individual by the name of Shawana Deville was questioned about the crime that Anderson was convicted of while being held illegally by VPPD officers.
Anderson, who was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery, was sentenced in July 2016 to life in prison and 50 years of hard labor for armed robbery.
On January 27, 2017 West’s denial of the new trial was officially filed into the record, and his ruling specifically outlines the reasons why.
In his ruling, it states that “this motion is based on C.Cr.P. Art. 851 and therefore it must be filed and heard prior to the sentencing hearing.” Anderson’s motion however, was filed six months after he was sentenced.
According to the ruling, the motion must state how the violation of the witness’ constitutional rights affected the court proceedings. West ruled that the motion “fails to state how that is so.”
The ruling also stated that “the essence of the Motion for a New Trial is that some injustice has been done to the defendant,” however, “in this case, the defendant confessed to the murder of Mrs. Ann Nguyen.” The murder weapon was also located in the backpack of the defendant.
Another reason why the judge denied the motion, according to court records, was because the individual that was held illegally was never called to the stand as a witness during the trial. The documents also revealed that the defendant had possession of Deville’s interview with the VPPD prior to the trial, thus making this evidence “discoverable despite reasonable diligence prior to trial.”
The official ruling also states that the defendant appealed his conviction on August 31, 2016. According to Louisiana Law, once an individual enters an order of appeal, “the trial court has no jurisdiction to take any action except as otherwise provided by law.”
The ruling continues, “A Motion for a New Trial is not an action that is ‘otherwise’ provided by law,” therefore the court in Evangeline Parish no longer has jurisdiction over this matter.
Since the ruling, Chapman has forwarded this information on to Anderson’s appellate attorney, who may include the denial for a new trial in their present appeal of his conviction.