STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2023 KA 0991

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

BRANDON GOUDY

Tfk) Judgment Rendered: 

1 Appealed from the

17th Judicial District Court

Parish of Lafourche, State of Louisiana

No. 592932

The Honorable F. Hugh Larose, Judge Presiding

Kristine Russell

District Attorney

Joseph S. Soignet

Shaun George

Assistant District Attorneys

Thibodaux, Louisiana

Gwendolyn K. Brown

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Brandon Goudy

Angola, Louisiana

APR 19 2024

Attorneys for Appellee, 

The State of Louisiana

Attorney for Appellant, 

Brandon Goudy

Appellant, 

In Proper Person

BEFORE: WELCH, WOLFE, AND STROMBERG, JJ. 
WOLFE, J. 

The defendant, Brandon Goudy, was charged by grand jury indictment with

one count of second-degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 30. 1( A)( 1), and pled

not guilty. Following a trial, the jury unanimously found the defendant guilty as

charged. The trial court denied the defendant' s motions for new trial and post - 

verdict judgment of acquittal, and sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment at

hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The

defendant now appeals. We affirm the conviction and sentence. 

FACTS

On the evening of September 15, 2019, Tedrick Johnson and his family

members, Einajara Clark and Renata Hawkins, were talking outside of Clark' s home

on Ledet Street in Thibodaux, Louisiana. A black vehicle drove slowly down the

street and stopped in front of the home, then the driver fired several gunshots out of

the window before speeding off. Neither Clark nor Hawkins were struck by the

gunfire, but Tedrick suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the heart. After witnesses

identified the defendant as the shooter, he was arrested for Tedrick' s murder. 

Tedrick shares the same surname as one of his relatives, Justin Johnson. In order to avoid

confusion, we reference them by their first names. 

2
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In three combined assignments of error,2 the defendant argues the evidence

was insufficient to support the conviction.3

A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand, as it violates due

process. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV; La. Const. art. 1, § 2. The standard ofreview

for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether any rational

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a

reasonable doubt based on the entirety of the evidence, both admissible and

inadmissible, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. See Jackson v. 

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 ( 1979); State v. 

Alexander, 2022- 01205 ( La. 515123), 362 So.3d 356, 357-58; see also La. Code

Crim. P. art. 821( B). When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the

reviewing court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded beyond

a reasonable doubt that that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been

excluded. State v. Jones, 2016- 1502 ( La. 1/ 30118), 318 So.3d 678, 681- 82. The

question for the reviewing court is not whether the defendant has suggested another

possible hypothesis that could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion; rather, 

the reviewing court evaluates the evidence in the light most favorable to the state

Z

The defendant filed a pro se brief that raised the same three assignments oferror with the same

supporting arguments as in his counseled brief. 

3

In his second assignment of error, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his

motion for post -verdict judgment of acquittal that was premised upon the insufficiency of the

evidence and in his third assignment of error, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying

his motion for new trial that was premised upon the insufficiency of the evidence. A challenge to

the sufficiency of evidence is properly raised by a motion for post -verdict judgment of acquittal, 

not a motion for new trial. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 821. Appellate courts may review the grant

or denial of a motion for new trial only for errors of law. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 858. Thus, 

the only issue reviewable in the combined assignments of error is the constitutional issue of

sufficiency ofthe evidence, which was raised in the defendant' s motion for post -verdict judgment

of acquittal. See State v. Anthony, 2023- 0117 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 1113123), So.3d , 2023

WL 7270882, * 1 n.3; State v. Francis, 2019- 1392 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 12117120), 318 So. 3d 862, 

867 n.6. 

3
and determines whether the alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a

rational trier of fact could not have found proof of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Jones, 318 So.3d at 682. 

Second- degree murder is defined, in pertinent part, as 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)( 1). Specific intent is " that state ofmind 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). It may be formed

in an instant. State v. Brown, 2016-0998 ( La. 1/ 28/ 22), 347 So.3d 745, 787, cert. 

denied, U.S. , 143 S. Ct. 886, 215 L.Ed.2d 404 ( 2023). Specific intent may

be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the offense and the conduct of the

defendant; however, circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable

hypothesis of innocence. See La. R.S. 15: 438; Brown, 347 So.3d at 787. For

example, specific intent to kill may be inferred from a defendant' s act of pointing a

gun and tiring at a person. State v. Reed, 2014- 1980 ( La. 917/ 16), 200 So. 3d 29I, 

309, cert. denied, 580 U.S. 1166, 137 S. Ct. 787, 197 L.Ed.2d 258 ( 2017). 

On appeal, the defendant concedes that the evidence proved he shot and killed

Tedrick. However, he claims his conviction should be overturned because the

evidence also proved that he acted in self-defense. 

A homicide is justifiable "[ w]hen committed in self-defense by one who

reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great

bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger." La. 

R.S. 14: 20( A)( 1). When self-defense is asserted as a defense by the defendant, the

State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was

not perpetrated in self-defense. Reed, 200 So.3d at 309. Thus, the issue in this case

is whether a rational factfinder, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the prosecution, could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did

11
not kill the victim in self-defense. See State v. Brown, 2023- 0293 ( La. App. 1st

Cir. 11/ 28/ 23), So.3d , 2023 WL 8228182, * 2. 

At trial, the State presented overwhelming evidence that the defendant herein

did not act in self-defense when he shot Tedrick. Clark testified that on the night of

September 15, 2019, she was outside with Tedrick and her mother, Hawkins, when

a vehicle slowly approached and stopped in front of her house. Without saying

anything, the driver suddenly fired a gun at them before speeding off. Clark testified

that Tedrick did not shoot a gun, nor did he have a gun in his possession. She further

testified that no one else outside the vehicle shot a gun, and there were no other

vehicles on the street at that time. 

Hawkins testified that she noticed a black truck slowly drive down the street

before stopping in front of Clark"s home. When the vehicle stopped, Hawkins

observed " something shiny" in the driver' s window and heard multiple gunshots

come from the vehicle before it sped away. Hawkins testified that the driver did not

say anything before shooting. She further testified that she did not see Tedrick or

anyone else with a gun. She stated that Justin Johnson, Tedrick' s cousin, was also

there that night, but he was behind the house at the time ofthe shooting. 

Justin testified that earlier on the night of September 15, 2019 ( the night of

the shooting), he was at the Mobil gas station (" Mobil") on Canal Boulevard, which

is near Clark' s home on Ledet Street. He denied having an altercation with the

defendant at Mobil and stated that when he returned to Ledet Street, he asked Tedrick

to go back to Mobil for him. Justin testified that after Tedrick returned from the

store, he told Tedrick that he observed a black Chevy Tahoe driving down the street

and to " watch yourself." According to Justin, Tedrick replied, " I' m not worried

about nobody, I' m going home," and walked past him toward Ledet Street. Justin

testified that approximately one and a half minutes later, he heard several gunshots. 

5
Justin stated that Tedrick did not have a gun, nor were there any other vehicles on

Ledet Street at the time ofthe shooting. 

Dr. Ellen Connor performed the autopsy on Tedrick and testified that he

suffered one gunshot wound to the chest, which pierced his heart and caused his

death. During the autopsy, Dr. Connor recovered a metal jacket fragment from

Tedrick' s body. 

Jamal Washington, the defendant' s friend, testified that at around 9:00 p.m. 

on September 15, 2019, the defendant left Washington' s home at King' s Place

Apartments on Martin Luther King Drive.' A short time later, the defendant returned

to grab a few things before leaving again. Washington testified that when the

defendant returned a second time at around 11: 00 p.m., the defendant had his gun

and was screaming that "they shot at him." Washington also observed blood on the

defendant' s hand. According to Washington, the defendant called him between 3: 00

and 5: 00 a.m. the next morning and instructed him on what to say to the police. 

In his interview with police, Washington stated he and the defendant went to

Mobil, where Justin confronted the defendant. They then traveled to Ledet Street, 

and the defendant shot Tedrick. Washington confirmed the defendant was the only

person who fired a gun that night. At trial, however, Washington recanted his

statement and testified that he did not go to Mobil or Ledet Street with the defendant. 

Officers with the Thibodaux Police Department responded to the scene on

1602 Ledet Street after Clark called 911. Officers then interviewed witnesses and

developed the defendant as a suspect, after which they traveled to the defendant' s

place of employment. Upon searching the defendant' s vehicle, officers collected

two spent shell casings between the hood and windshield, and one spent shell casing

from the front passenger side floorboard. Officers did not observe any bullet holes

4

According to Washington, the defendant had been living with him for approximately one

month before the shooting. 

ril
or damage to the defendant' s vehicle, except for broken glass on the driver' s side

rearview mirror. However, the mirror did not have any defects which indicated it

was damaged by a bullet. 

Officers also obtained a search warrant for Washington' s residence, where

they recovered the defendant' s . 40 caliber pistol. Ballistics testing indicated that the

three casings recovered from the defendant' s vehicle, as well as the jacket fragment

from Tedrick' s body, were all fired from the defendant' s firearm. 

The defendant testified at trial and stated that at around 9:00 p.m. on

September 15, 2019, he and Washington went to Mobil, where Justin called him a

rat" and accused him of informing on someone. He denied the accusation and

walked into Mobil. Upon exiting, Justin told him, " Make sure you keep your gun

on you." The defendant testified that as he drove away from Mobil, Justin fired

several shots at his vehicle. However, the defendant testified that he did not think

Justin was trying to kill him at that time. 

The defendant explained that he and Washington returned home and remained

there about thirty minutes until they left again to go to a different gas station, As

they headed back home a second time, they passed Mobil and eventually turned onto

Ledet Street. The defendant observed two or three women walking down the street

and began to drive slower as one of them started walking toward his truck. As he

drove past the women, he looked to his left and saw two individuals come out from

behind a trailer. The defendant testified that Tedrick, who was about ten to fifteen

feet away from his vehicle, began shooting at him. After a bullet struck his rearview

mirror, he grabbed his firearm and began shooting until he was shot in the hand, after

which he drove himself and Washington home.' He further testified that at the time

s

The defendant testified he slid not receive medical treatment for this injury, as he believed a

bullet only grazed his hand, and the jail, where he was later incarcerated, declined to treat it. 

7
he fired his weapon on Ledet Street, he was afraid for his and Washington' s lives

and believed he had to return fire to protect himself. 

In his statement to police, the defendant stated he went to Mobil, where Justin

shot at his vehicle. He then returned to Washington' s home for a short period of

time before leaving again with Washington. The defendant stated they eventually

ended up on Ledet Street, at which point he observed Tedrick and another man. 

According to the defendant, Tedrick then shot at him, after which the defendant

grabbed his firearm and returned fire until a bullet grazed his hand. Additionally, 

the defendant stated he had no issues with Tedrick, and they saw each other almost

every day. 

Approximately six months after the defendant was arrested and placed in the

Lafourche Parish Detention Center, a nurse recovered a spherical object from his

hand, which was later submitted for ballistics testing. The object, a suspected piece

of lead, was very round, did not contain a jacket, and had no surface bearing that

would indicate it was part of a bullet. 

On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence showed that he shot Tedrick in

self-defense. Because he had been shot at earlier in the day by Justin, he claims he

reasonably believed his life was in danger when two men ran toward him with guns

on Ledet Street. While the defendant acknowledges the State produced evidence to

rebut his self-defense claim, he contends his account was more reasonable, and the

jury should have found the State' s evidence insufficient. 

In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the

physical evidence, one witness' s testimony, if believed by the trier of fact, is

sufficient to support a factual conclusion. Reed, 200 So. 3d at 312. Further, where

there is conflicting testimony about 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. Alexander, 2014- 1619 { La. 
App. 1 st Cir. 9/ 18/ 15), 182 So.3d 126, 1. 31, writ denied, 2015- 1912 ( La. 1125116), 

185 So.3d 748. Accordingly, on appeal, this court will not assess the credibility of

witnesses or reweigh the evidence to overturn a trier of fact' s determination of guilt. 

State v. Bessie, 2021- 1117 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 8/ 22), 342 So.3d 17, 23, writ denied, 

2022- 00846 (La. 9/20/22), 346 So.3d 802. 

In finding the defendant guilty of second-degree murder, it is clear the jury

rejected the defendant' s claim of self-defense and concluded the use of deadly force

against Tedrick under the particular facts of this case was neither reasonable nor

necessary. Clark and Hawkins both testified that the defendant was the only person

who shot a firearm on the night of the murder. They further testified that both

Tedrick and Justin were unarmed and did not shoot at the defendant' s vehicle. Justin

likewise testified that neither he nor Tedrick had a gun. Although the defendant

contends he was afraid for his life because Justin allegedly shot at him earlier that

night at Mobil, Justin testified that there was no such incident, and officers were

unable to find any evidence of a shooting at that location. Even assuming there was

a shooting at Mobil, the defendant testified he did not believe Justin was trying to

kill him and acknowledged Tedrick was not involved in the incident. Accordingly, 

we cannot conclude the jury was irrational in rejecting the defendant' s self-defense

claim. 

Washington Airther corroborated the testimony of Clark, Hawkins, and Justin

that the defendant was the only individual who fired a weapon on Ledet Street. 

Although Washington recanted his initial statement to officers at trial, he described

the night of the shooting in great detail in his interview, stating he was positive no

one shot at the defendant before or after he pulled out his weapon and shot Tedrick. 

Any discrepancy between his prior statement and his in -court testimony goes to the

weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. See State v. Coleman, 2017- 1045 ( La. 

9
App. 1 st Cir. 4113118), 249 So.3d 872, 881, writ denied, 2018- 0830 ( La. 2118119), 

263 So.3d 1155. 

Moreover, the physical evidence failed to support the defendant' s assertion

that Tedrick, or anyone else, fired a gun at him such that he was required to resort to

self-defense. The shell casings recovered from the scene and the defendant' s

vehicle, as well as the jacket fragment recovered from Tedrick' s body, were all fired

from the defendant' s firearm. Officers were unable to locate any evidence at the

scene or on his vehicle that might indicate the defendant was shot at prior to firing

his weapon. Finally, ballistics testing indicated the object recovered from the

defendant' s hand was not a bullet fragment, as the defendant claimed. 

An appellate court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and

credibility of witnesses for that ofthe fact finder and thereby overturning a verdict on

the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to, and rationally

rejected by, the jury. See State v. Calloway, 2007-2306 (La. 1121109), 1 So.3d 417, 

418 (per curiam). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, 

we find that a rational trier of fact could have found the State proved beyond a

reasonable doubt all of the elements of second-degree murder and that the defendant

did not act in self-defense. This assignment oferror is without merit. 

PATENT ERROR

Pursuant to La. Code Crim P. art. 920(2), this court routinely conducts a

review ofall appeals for error discoverable by mere inspection ofthe pleadings and

proceedings and without inspection of the evidence. State v. Anthony, 2023- 0117

La. App. 1st Cir. 1113123), So.3d , 2023 WL 7270882, * 5. Here, the record

reflects that after imposing sentence, the trial court failed to infonn the defendant of

the prescriptive period for seeking post -conviction relief as required by La. Code

Crim. P. art. 930.8( 0). However, the trial court' s failure to do so has no bearing on

the sentence and is not grounds to reverse the sentence or remand for resentencing. 

10
State v. Verdin, 2022- 1178 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 917123), 2023 WL 5767592, * 19

unpublished), writ denied, 2023- 01319 ( La. 3/ 12124), So -3d . Instead, we

direct the trial court to provide the defendant with written notice of the prescriptive

period for seeking post -conviction relief within ten days of the rendition of this

opinion and to file confirmation of such notice into the trial court record of these

proceedings. See Verdin, 2023 WL 5767592 at * 19; State v. Kott, 2006- 0973 ( La. 

App. 1st Cir. 12128106), 2006 WL 3813712, * 1 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2007- 

0089 ( La. 10/ 12/ 07), 965 So.2d 392. 

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH

INSTRUCTIONS. 

11