Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Donald BOUZIGARD
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1973-12-03
Citations: 286 So. 2d 633
Docket Number: No. 53748
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Donald BOUZIGARD.
Judges: BARHAM, J., concurs with reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 286
Pages: 633–638

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Donald BOUZIGARD.
No. 53748.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Dec. 3, 1973.
Gordon Hackman, Boutte, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy Hartley, Special Coun. Atty. Gen., Francis Dugas, Dist. Atty., Walter Naquin, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
CALOGERO, Justice.
Defendant, Donald Bouzigard, was charged by bill of information with having violated La.R.S. 40:966, possession of marijuana. Prior to trial, the district attorney apparently informed the defendant and his attorney that the defendant would be prosecuted as a second offender for possession of marijuana, a felony punishable by fine and/or imprisonment with or without hard labor for not more than five (5) years under Sec. D(2) of R.S. 40:966. On March 30, 1973, a five man jury found the defendant guilty of possession of marijuana.
On April 24, 1973, the court sentenced the defendant to be committed to the Louisiana Department of Corrections for a period of three years at hard labor. The defendant has appealed his conviction and sentence.
Although several bills of exceptions were reserved during the trial, none were perfected. Nor did defendant or anyone on his behalf file a brief or appear for oral argument. Therefore, our review is limited to errors discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the evidence. La. Code Crim.Pro. Art. 920.
The pleadings and proceedings, including the corrected minutes, indicate that the defendant was tried under a bill of information charging him with simple possession of marijuana. The bill did not allege that defendant had been previously convicted of a similar offense. Accordingly, the charge was a misdemeanor.
On the day of sentencing, however, the State attempted to amend the bill of information to include the following:
". . . Donald Bouzigard had previously been convicted in State of Louisiana vs. Nos. 40001, 40002, and 40003, Donald Bouzigard, on September 3, 1971."
Although the hill of information, as amended, does not specifically charge defendant with having been previously convicted for possession of marijuana, presumably the three numbered proceedings did involve convictions for possession of marijuana. Accordingly, the State's attempt to amend the bill of information was designed to raise the grade of offense from a misdemeanor to a felony under the provisions of R.S. 40:966.
It was on the basis of this amended bill of information that the court imposed a felony sentence, namely, three years at hard labor in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections.
There are two reasons why this sentence cannot stand. First of all, the amended bill of information does not comply with the requirements of Article 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That article regarding allegations of prior convictions states that
"If it is necessary to allege a prior conviction in an indictment, it is sufficient to allege the name or nature of the offense and the fact, date, and court of the conviction."
The amended bill of information in this instance does not allege the name or nature of the offense nor the court of the conviction.
There is, however, another reason why the amended bill of information may not support the sentence imposed.
There are several provisions in our criminal code which provide for enhanced penalties for repeat offenders: R.S. 14:67 Theft, R.S. 14:98 Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated, R.S. 14:99 Reckless Operation of a Vehicle. Like the pertinent statute before us, R.S. 40:966, there are in these statutes provisions for enhanced penalties for repeat offenders. And as is noted in the Official Revision Comment to Article 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ". . ' . there is no provision in those articles which authorizes a district attorney to wait until after a defendant is convicted of the charge in question to inform him that he has been prosecuted as a multiple offender. In such cases the prior convictions, like the amount of damage done in a simple arson case, is a matter to be determined in arriving at the degree of the defendant's guilt and must be alleged in the indictment." See State v. Compagno, 125 La. 669, 51 So. 681 (1910).
In a more recent decision of this Court involving prosecution for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages as a second offender, this Court stated, "But even though prior convictions do not constitute a material ingredient of the crime here charged, it is our view that in order for the accused to be sentenced as a second, third, or fourth offender under the provisions of this statute the prior convictions must be alleged in the affidavit, information, or indictment." State v. Montgomery, 250 La. 326, 195 So.2d 285, 287 (1967).
As in the case of prosecution for multiple offender DWI, the prosecution for multiple offender possession of marijuana, must include in the hill of information the charge that the defendant had been previously convicted of the same offense.
The State makes the plausible argument that the reason it waited until after the defendant was found guilty to amend the bill of information to include the prior convictions, instead of initially doing so, was to prevent the defendant from being unduly prejudiced by in effect advising the jury that defendant had been convicted of a prior crime. This contention was answered by this court in State v. Compagno, supra, when it stated,
"Where a defendant claims the right to have the crime for which it is sought to convict him fully set forth in the act of accusation, his right to have a full statement cannot be denied to him on the ground that the state treats him with special leniency, and withholds the charge apprehending [sic] on a charge of prior conviction, for the reason that it may prejudice him before the jury. If the averment is essential, it should be made a ground in the affidavit. We are of the opinion that it is essential; that the first conviction must be alleged. It enters into and makes part of the last offense. It is an aggravation which gives rise to an increase of the punishment. In matter of increasing the punishment, it is an essential." 51 So. at 682.
Compagno was re-affirmed in State v. Daniel, 141 La. 423, 75 So. 102 (1917).
It should be noted that prosecution under R.S. 40:966 and comparable statutes which provide for enhanced penalties for repeat violators is unlike prosecution under the Habitual Offender Law, R.S. 15:529.1 which concerns itself with prior unrelated felonies. Under that statute if the District Attorney chooses to exercise his discretion and charge a defendant with being a habitual offender, he must file a bill of information under R.S. 15:529.1 only after conviction or sentence. There the prior felony or felonies for which a defendant has been convicted, form no element of the most recently committed offense, and as provided by the second paragraph of Article 483, La.C.Cr.Pr.
". . . the indictment shall not contain an allegation of a prior conviction of the defendant unless such allegation is necessary to fully charge the offense."
As the defendant was not charged as a second offender nor convicted of same the sentence imposed is illegal and the case must be remanded for the imposition of a legal sentence. State v. Carter, 168 La. 807, 123 So. 332 (1929).
For the reasons assigned the sentence is annulled and set aside and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to sentence the defendant, Donald Bouzigard, on the misdemeanor charge on which he was billed, prosecuted and convicted.
BARHAM, J., concurs with reasons.
. R.S. 40 :966 provides :
D. Possession of marijuana. (1) On a first conviction for violation Subsection C of this section 'with regard to marijuana, the offender shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars and/or imprisoned in the parish jail for not more than six months.
(2) On a second conviction for violation of Subsection 0 of this section with regard to marijuana, the offender shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars and/or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than five years.
(3) On a third or subsequent conviction for violation of Subsection C of this section with regard to marijuana the offender shall be sentenced to imprisonment with or without hard labor for not more than twenty years. Added by Acts 1972, No. 634, § 1.