Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald A. BOSWORTH
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1981-09-28
Citations: 415 So. 2d 912
Docket Number: No. 80-KA-1619
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald A. BOSWORTH.
Judges: GUIDRY, J., ad hoc, concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 415
Pages: 912–930

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald A. BOSWORTH.
No. 80-KA-1619.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Sept. 28, 1981.
On Rehearing June 11, 1982.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Norval J. Rhodes, Dist. Atty., James L. Alcock, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Robert Glass, and John Wilson Reed, of Glass & Reed, New Orleans, Tom Collins, New Orleans, of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n, for defendant-appellant.

Opinion:
KLEES, Justice Ad Hoc.
Defendant Gerald Bosworth was indicted by the grand jury of Terrebonne Parish on January 12, 1977, with two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, in violation of R.S. 14:92 A(9). On August 24, 1977, after an initial plea of not guilty, the defendant pled guilty to one count and the prosecution subsequently dismissed the other. On the date set for sentencing, the defense filed a motion for production of the presentence investigation report which was denied after oral argument. Application was made for supervisory writs and on June 19, 1978, this Court ordered disclosure of the report.
After a sentencing hearing, the defendant was sentenced to one year imprisonment at hard labor. The defendant appealed, arguing that the offense was a misdemeanor and not a felony. On June 25,1979, this Court set aside the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.
On remand, the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and a supplemental motion to withdraw his guilty plea. An evidentiary hearing was conducted and both motions were denied. Contemporaneously, the defendant filed a motion to re-cuse the trial judge. The motion to recuse was heard and denied; writs to this Court were also denied. After denying a renewed motion for probation, the trial court sentenced defendant to imprisonment for one year in the parish prison. Defendant appealed to this Court. After the appeals record was lodged with this Court defendant filed with the trial court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that his plea of guilty had not been knowingly and voluntarily entered. Pursuant to an interim order by this Court dated September 12, 1980, an evidentiary hearing on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was conducted by the trial court, at the conclusion of which the trial judge denied relief. Defendant then filed a second notice of appeal and a supplemental specification of error. The appeals are now before this Court on consolidated specifications of error.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 1, 2, and 3
By these assignments of error the defendant urges that the trial court erred in denying his motions to withdraw the guilty plea on the grounds: (1) the state breached a plea bargain agreement; (2) there was an improper "Boykin ization" of the defendant which made his guilty plea constitutionally unknowing; and (3) the defendant's attorney at the time of the guilty plea operated under a conflict of interest which was not disclosed to the defendant.
The Plea Bargain Agreement
The defendant maintains that his guilty plea was the product of a negotiated plea bargain between his former lawyer and the state. He alleges that the state obligated itself first, to dismiss an additional charge against him and second, to recommend a suspended sentence to the trial judge. He contends that the presentence investigation report reveals that the state failed to comply with the latterpart of the agreement.
The state asserts that neither the District Attorney not any member of his staff agreed to recommend a suspended sentence to the trial judge.
The motion to withdraw the guilty plea based on the "breached plea bargain agreement" was filed on April 18, 1980. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge denied the motion.
During cross examination by the state at a January 18, 1980 hearing, the defendant testified that he believed that he was going to get a suspended sentence based on representations made to him by his attorney. He stated that he had answered in the negative when asked whether he had been promised anything during his "Boykin ization" merely because that was his understanding of how the district attorney operates on plea bargaining. The defendant's former attorney, Edward James Gaidry, testified for the state at the hearing. On cross-examination by the defense, he testified that both he and defendant were hopeful that he would receive a suspended sentence based on conversations that he had with both the district attorney and the trial court and on information which he would later supply to the court. When asked by defense counsel whether the district attorney had represented to him that he would recommend probation to the trial judge, Mr. Gaidry responded, "As set forth in my letter, I said to the best of my knowledge, 'it's my understanding that Mr. Rhodes would recommended a suspended sentence'."
However, the defense points out, it is well established that whenever a guilty plea rests in any significant degree on an agreement or promise by the prosecutor, so that it can be viewed as part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled or the defendant given an opportunity to withdraw the plea. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, at 264, 92 S.Ct. 495, at 499, 30 L.Ed.2d 427, State v. Neitte, 363 So.2d 425 (La.1978).
In Santobello, supra, the prosecution following defendant's negotiated plea, recommended a greater sentence than agreed upon in the plea bargain. The Supreme Court of the United States reasoned that the defendant was entitled to relief in "[t]he interest of justice and appropriate recognition of the duties of the prosecutor in relation to promises made in the negotiation of pleas of guilty." 404 U.S. at 264, 92 S.Ct. at 499.
The state's failure to comply with a material representation or promise which induced defendant's guilty plea results in a denial of due process. State v. Neitte, supra. In Neitte, the District Attorney admitted that he had entered into a plea bargaining agreement with defendant. After he did not fulfill his part agreement, he argued that it was merely "conditional, unconfirmed". On appeal, this Court held that the defendant had entered a guilty plea based upon the District Attorney's promise or representation to him. Finding that the uncontroverted agreement had been breached, the case was remanded to allow the defendant to reinstate his guilty plea. Neitte, supra, 363 So.2d at 426-27.
Here, the state argues that no agreement ever existed and the defendant was merely "mistaken or hopeful" of a suspended sentence and that, therefore, the trial court's ruling should be affirmed. It cites the case State v. Lockwood, 399 So.2d 190 (La.1981) as authority for its position. In State v. Lockwood, supra, the defendant never contended that a plea bargain was entered into or that a promise had been made. Moreover, this Court found nothing in the record or defendant's brief, to establish that defense counsel should have reasonably inferred that he would receive a suspended sentence. Defendant's argument was only that he should be allowed to plead anew because he believe that he would receive a suspended sentence when he entered his guilty plea. Based on those facts this Court held that "a misunderstanding does not have the same implication that a breached plea bargain had," and the trial judge had not abused its discretion.
Here, this court finds nothing in the record to establish that defendant should have reasonably inferred that he would receive a suspended sentence and we can find no error in the trial court's determination that there was no such plea bargain.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
Defendant urges that the trial court was in error in failing to set aside his plea of guilty on the grounds that the record of the plea proceeding did not affirmatively and independently establish that he had made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination.
The defense argues that the failure of the trial judge to aver to the privilege against self-incrimination in his plea colloquy with the defendant renders the plea fatally defective regardless of whether the offense is considered a felony or a misdemeanor. During the colloquy between defendant and the trial court the only statement which could be interpreted as a reference to the privilege against self-incrimination as follows:
BY THE COURT: Do you understand that you have a right to present your side of the case, if you desire?
BY MR. BOSWORTH: Yes, sir.
As stated above, at the time of the instant offense, R.S. 14:92 had been construed as defining a relative felony punishable by up to two years' imprisonment and a fine of not more than $1,000.00. State v. Elias, 357 So.2d 275 (La.1978); State v. Seals, 343 So.2d 717 (La.1977). However, this court, in an earlier appeal by the defendant herein, overruled Elias and Seals, and held that the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor must be given misdemeanor status. State v. Bosworth, supra 373 So.2d at 155.
The state urges that since the offense has been classified as a misdemeanor, defendant need not have been "Boykin bed" at the time he pleaded guilty. It also argues that, while the trial judge did not specifically use the words "privilege against self-incrimination" his question to the defendant was more than adequate to determine if defendant, who was an attorney engaged in the active practice of law, fully understood his rights.
In his oral reasons in denying the motion to withdraw, the trial judge concentrated on the issue of whether "Boykin ization" was required in misdemeanor cases and whether the defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary. He concluded that the guilty plea was voluntary and entered by defendant with a full understanding of his rights, and that Boykin ization was not required when a defendant pleads guilty to a misdemeanor. State v. Dunn, 390 So.2d 525 (La.1980).
Under the limited facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that defendant, a practicing attorney, accompanied by his defense counsel, a former assistant district attorney, knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty and find no merit in this specification of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3
By this assignment the defense contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on the former defense counsel's failure to disclose to his client a conflict of interest arising from counsel's representation of an immunized prosecution witness.
On January 18, 1977, approximately six days prior to the grand jury indictment of defendant, David Thomas was supoenaed to appear before the grand jury of Terrebonne Parish in connection with his participation in the crime for which the defendant was subsequently indicted. Thomas sought the services of James Gaidry who was retained as his attorney. Gaidry sought and received immunity from prosecution for Thomas, through an agreement with the district attorney's office. By the terms of that agreement, Thomas testified in the grand jury proceedings, and according to the defense, further agreed to testify against defendant in the event the case went to trial. Less than two months later, in March, 1977, the defendant retained Gaidry for the purpose of securing his services as counsel in the present case for a fee. Gaidry accepted the employment without making a disclosure to defendant of his representation of Thomas.
As stated above, prior to re-sentencing, the defendant filed the motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on the alleged conflict of interest. An evidentiary hearing was conducted on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The motion was denied.
In denying the motion, the trial judge found that there was no evidence upon which the court could conclude that Gaidry was aware the witness had given testimony or furnished evidence to the grand jury concerning the defendant. He further stated that the fact that Gaidry represented the witness, who claims he gave testimony and evidence before the grand jury against the defendant, standing alone does not demonstrate a conflict of interest or impediment to his proper representation of defendant.
The right to every criminal defendant to have the effective assistance of an attorney during the proceedings against him is the cornerstone of our legal system. Amendment 6, U.S. Constitution, La.Const. (1974) Art. I, Section 13; Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978); Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). As a general rule, this Court has held that an attorney laboring under an actual conflict of interest cannot render effective legal assistance to the defendant he is representing. State v. Franklin, 400 So.2d 616 (La.1981).
In the instant case, in order for there to have been an actual conflict of interest requiring a reversal, Gaidry would have had to have knowledge of an agreement with the state whereby Thomas would testify before the grand jury and at the subsequent trial against defendant.
The trial court found that Gaidry represented Thomas for the sole purpose of obtaining immunity and that there was not evidence Gaidry knew of any implication of defendant. Although he found that Gaidry was able to get immunity for Thomas as consequence of a conference with the district attorney, he made no finding as to the terms of an agreement. The trial court concluded, however, that he did not believe that a conflict of interest exists.
This court agrees and concludes that the trial court correctly evaluated the testimony, and that an "Actual Conflict" did not exist and defendant is not entitled to relief.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4
By this agreement the defendant urges that the trial court committed error in imposing a constitutionally excessive sentence of one year in the parish prison for this first offense misdemeanor.
At the time of its commission, the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor was punishable by not more than two years imprisonment or a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or both. La.R.S. 14:92(C) . The defendant was sentenced to one year.
This court has held that imposition of a sentence even within statutory limits may violate defendant's rights under the Louisiana Constitution against excessive punishment. Thus, it has been determined that excessiveness of sentence poses a question of law reviewable by this Court under its appellate jurisdiction. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979); State v. Spencer, 374 So.2d 1195 (La.1979). However, the trial judge is given wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within statutory limits, and the sentence imposed should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of his discretion. State v. Sepulvado, supra.
Sepulvado further states that adequate review mandates that the trial judge state specific reasons for an apparently severe sentence in relation to the particular offender and the actual offense. The trial judge's reasons for imposing sentence as required by La.C.Cr.P. Art. 894.1 are an essential aid to this Court when reviewing for a sentence for excessiveness and abuse of discretion. State v. Spencer, supra.
Article 894.1 provides:
A. When a defendant has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, the court should impose a sentence of imprisonment if:
(1)There is an undue risk that during the period of a suspended sentence or probation the defendant will commit another crime;
(2) The defendant is in need of correctional treatment or a custodial environment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; and
(3) A lessor sentence will deprecate the seriousness of the defendant's crime.
B. The following grounds, while not controlling the discretion of the court, shall be accorded weight in its determination of suspension of sentence or probation.
(1) The defendant's criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened serious harm;
(2) The defendant did not contemplate that his criminal conduct would cause or threaten serious harm;
(3) The defendant acted under strong provocation;
(4) There was substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify the defendant's criminal conduct, though failing to establish a defense;
(5) The victim of the defendant's criminal conduct induced or facilitated its commission;
(6) The defendant has compensated or will compensate the victim of his criminal conduct for the damage or injury that he sustained;
(7) The defendant has no history of prior delinquency or criminal activity or has led a law-abiding life for a substantial period of time before the commission of the instant crime;
(8) The defendant's criminal conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur;
(9) The character and attitude of the defendant indicate that he is unlikely to commit another crime;
(10) The defendant is particularly likely to respond affirmatively to probationary treatment; and
(11) The imprisonment of the defendant would entail excessive hardship to himself or his dependents.
C. The court shall stated for the record the consideration taken into account and the factual basis therefor in imposing sentence.
In a second sentencing statement, filed in the record on May 16, 1980, the trial judge, relying primarily upon the presentence investigation report and the investigative report made by special agents for the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States Department of Justice, sentenced the defendant to one year in the parish jail.
The trial judge listed the mitigating grounds found in 894.1(B) and stated his reasons and findings applicable to each ground. He stated that the defendant, an experienced lawyer, was well aware of the seriousness of what he was doing in giving illegal drugs to minors, and that the giving of marijuana, amphetamines, hashish oil, as well as offers of cocaine can fairly be characterized as serious. He found that the record had not convinced him that defendant was provoked and that there were no grounds whatsoever that would excuse or justify what defendant had done. In reference to the report of Dr. Charles Billings a certified psychiatrist, the trial judge referred to his first sentencing statement and concluded that the defendant's alleged impairment of judgment, assuming he had any, is no defense or justification for his actions. Although finding that the defendant should be given credit for not having a prior criminal record, he noted that defendant's admission of his engagement in the extensive use of illegal drugs over a long period of time established that defendant did have a history of criminal activity. He also stated that imprisonment would work a hardship on defendant and his dependents, and that the defendant had shown remorse for his conduct, but based on his past record of drug abuse and lack of concern for the law, probation would not be a proper sentence. The trial judge concluded that a lessor sentence than the one imposed would deprecate the seriousness of defendant's crime.
The pre-sentence investigation report reveals that defendant is 34 years old, legally separated, and the father of two children. Defendant has legal custody of his 11 year old son and his wife has legal custody of their 13 year old daughter, both children have been in the physical custody of the mother since the indictment. The defendant is a 1970 graduate of the Tulane Law School and has been licensed to practice in Houma, Louisiana, for seven years. The defendant is a first offender who entered De Paul's Hospital on January 20, 1977 where he underwent treatment by Dr. Charles K. Billings of Ochsner Clinic, New Orleans, Louisiana for approximately six weeks. At the time of Dr. Billings' statement to the probation and parole agent, defendant was still seeing him on a monthly basis, but he was considering releasing defendant from a regular treatment period. The defendant had first offered victim drugs when she was in the 8th grade. She also stated that at the same time he attempted, unsuccessfully, to have sexual relations with her. She stated that she began working at his law office on a part time basis after school when she was in the eleventh grade and during this time defendant continuously provided her with drugs. She informed the special agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation that she used marijuana or a mixture of marijuana and hashish three or four times a week, either in defendant's office, or in his car when he would drive her home from work. He also supplied her with marijuana, hashish, hashish oil, amphetamines, and on two occasions offered her cocaine which she refused.
Amy Cipolla, another minor, stated that defendant had offered her and Monica Gray marijuana which they accepted and smoked with him in his office. She also stated that she received speed (amphetamines) from defendant through Monica Gray on several occasions during the summer of 1976.
This court has consistently held that if the trial court has stated the factual basis and individual consideration on which the sentence is based, then review will focus upon whether the trial court has abused its large discretion. State v. Cox, 369 So.2d 118, 121 (La.1979), State v. Spencer, supra, 374 So.2d at 1202.
Defendant Bosworth has pled guilty to the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile — in this case his 16 year old niece. Defendant admitted taking amphetamines, percodan, downers, and cocaine. His statement that Monica Gray, the victim, had been taking drugs since she was 13, does not justify his actions in giving her drugs. Moreover, she testified that the defendant gave her drugs at approximately age 13. In light of the circumstances, more than adequate reasons were given for sentencing and the one year sentence imposed was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion.
Nonetheless, according to the indictment, the offense to which Bosworth pled guilty occurred somewhere between July 1, 1976 and July 25, 1976.
On July 11,1976, the governor signed the previously passed Acts 1976, No. 121 which reduced the penalty to a maximum of six months imprisonment and a fine of $500.00.
As a matter of basic fairness, it seems self-evident that, absent some special circumstances, a sentencing court should give great weight to a legislative reduction of penalties that pre-dates the offense. In its decisions, this court has implied that sort of consideration. State v. Wright, 384 So.2d 399 (La.1980); State v. Doxey, 384 So.2d 402 (La.1980); State v. Clark, 391 So.2d 1174 (La.1980).
For the reasons assigned the defendant's conviction is affirmed; the sentence is vacated and set aside and the case is remanded to the district court for re-sentencing of defendant consistent with the views expressed herein.
GUIDRY, J., ad hoc, concurs.
SWIFT, J., ad hoc, concurs in the result.
LEMMON, J., concurs in affirming the conviction and dissenting from setting aside the sentence and assigns reasons.
WATSON, J., dissents as to Assignment of Error # 1.
Judge E. L. Guidry, Jr., and G. William Swift, Jr. of the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit and Judge Robert J. Klees of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, participated in this decision as Associate Justices ad hoc joined by Associate Justices Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., James L. Dennis, Jack C. Watson, and Harry T. Lemmon.
. State v. Bosworth, 360 So.2d 173 (La.1978)
. State v. Bosworth, 373 So.2d 152 (La.1979).
. State v. Bosworth, 377 So.2d 129 (La.1979).
. In State v. Bosworth, 373 So.2d 152 (La.1980), this Court held that a violation of R.S. 14:92 A(9) should be given misdemeanor status. Thus, the sentence originally imposed was merely changed upon remand to provide for imprisonment in the parish prison.
. This issue was raised on a post sentence writ of habeas corpus filed with the district court on October 3, 1980. This Court by order dated September 12, 1980, remanded the case for a hearing on the writ.
. La. R.S. 14:92(C) was amended in 1976 and presently provides a penalty as following: (c) Whoever commits the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months or both. Amended by Acts 1976, No. 121 § 1.
. The record reflect the indictment was returned against defendant on January 12, 1977, six days before Thomas appeared before the grand jury. However the fact that Thomas gave testimony against defendant before the grand jury is not disputed. Defendant testified that Gaidry's representation of Thomas was not made known to him until Thomas advised him of the fact some time in 1979.
. La.R.S. 14:92(C) was amended in 1976 to provide in pertinent part; (c) whoever commits the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months or both. Amended by Acts 1976, No. 121 § 1.
. Bosworth was indicted on two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile. On the basis of the plea bargain discussed supra, one of the counts was dismissed.
. The act made all violations of R.S. 14:92 other than a violation of subsection (7) a misdemeanor punishable by no more than six months imprisonment. The act further made a violation of sub-section (7) a felony punishable by two years with or without hard labor. Bos-worth's conviction was for a violation of subsection (9) and accordingly, under the new statute would be a six month misdemeanor.