Case ID: so2d_430/html/0164-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. MARVIN, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John L. WILLIAMS, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15256-KA.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
    March 28, 1983.
    Rehearing Denied May 5, 1983.
    Nesib Nader, Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.
    Paul J. Carmouche, Dist. Atty., Shreveport, Barbara B. Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, Terry L. Lindsey and Catherine M. Estopinal, Asst. Dist. Attys., Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellee.
    Before MARVIN, FRED W. JONES, Jr., and SEXTON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

After having pled guilty to a charge of negligent homicide (La.R.S. 14:32), defendant, John L. Williams, Sr., was sentenced to be imprisoned at hard labor for five years. Defendant appealed, asserting in his brief that the sentence is excessive.

Although the defendant entered a con-temporaeous objection in the trial court at the time of his sentencing, he has not filed any assignments of error. Consequently, the scope of our, review is limited to errors patent on the face of the record. La.C. Cr.P. Articles 844, 920; State v. Delatte, 372 So.2d 1200, 1202 (La.1979); State v. Cox, 369 So.2d 118, 123 (La.1979). Finding none, we affirm the sentence.

MARVIN, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.

MARVIN, Judge,

dissenting.

Noting that defendant has not filed any assignment of error, the majority limits its review to errors patent and affirms the sentence, which is exactly what defendant, in his brief, seeks to have us review:

“By this appeal, appellant seeks review of his sentence on the ground that it is excessive in contravention of Article I, Section 20 of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution.”

Defendant also argues, however generally, the CCrP Art. 894.1 sentencing guidelines and states that

“The record is totally lacking of any particular justification for imposing the [maximum] sentence [of] Five (5) years.”

I would treat these assertions of defendant as an assignment that the trial judge imposed a constitutionally excessive sentence and failed to follow the CCrP Art. 894.1 guidelines.

This record, in my humble opinion, does not support the maximum sentence and I would remand to allow the trial court to articulate facts and consideration of factors for and against such a sentence. State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983). There are simply not enough detailed facts in this record for me to conclude that this defendant might be guilty of a higher degree of homicide than negligent homicide.

Whatever the shortcomings of the paperwork of defendant’s counsel, this defendant objected in the trial court to the sentence and has appealed and requested us to review the sentence. I respectfully dissent from this court’s declining the constitutionally guaranteed review of that sentence.