Court Opinion

ID: 9961770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 18:06:27.302061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:51.438997
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                COURT OF APPEAL

                                  FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 NO. 2023 KA 1082

                            STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                       VERSUS

                          CHRISTOPHER BELL, JR.

                                                Judgment Rendered:
                                                                        APR 19 2024

                                   On Appeal from the
                               22nd Judicial District Court
                        In and for the Parish of St. Tammany
                                    State of Louisiana
                               Trial Court No. 1216- 2019

                    Honorable Vincent J. Lobello, Judge Presiding

J. Collin Sims                                  Attorneys for Appellee,
District Attorney                               State of Louisiana
Butch Wilson
Matthew Caplan
Assistant District Attorneys
Covington, LA

Gwendolyn K. Brown                              Attorney for Defendant -Appellant,
Baton Rouge, LA                                 Christopher Bell, Jr.

             BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.
HESTER, J.

        The defendant, Christopher Bell, Jr.,       was charged by amended bill of

information with two counts of possession of a firearm by a person convicted of

certain felonies, violations of La. R. S. 14: 95. 1 ( Counts 1 &   2), and two counts of

obstruction ofjustice, violations of La. R.S. 14: 130. 1( A)( 1) and (B)( 2) ( Counts 3 &

4).   He entered a plea of not guilty and, following a trial by jury, was found guilty as

charged as to each count,        The defendant was later adjudicated a fourth felony

offender and, pursuant to La. R.S.      15: 529. 1, was sentenced to fifty years at hard

labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence as to each of

the four counts, to run concurrently.         The defendant now appeals, and for the

following reasons,        we affirm the defendant' s convictions, vacate his habitual

offender adjudications       and sentences,   and remand to the trial court for further

proceedings.

                                          FACTS

        On May 26, 2019, Deputy Don Powers with the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff' s

Office observed the defendant make an illegal U-turn, at which point Deputy Powers

activated his lights and attempted to pull the defendant over. However, the defendant

then sped up, turned onto a side road, and drove behind a fence. The defendant was

subsequently arrested, and a search of the nearby area revealed two firearms found

underneath a camper trailer located to the left of the defendant' s vehicle.          The

defendant was later charged with two counts of being a convicted felon in possession

of a firearm and two counts of obstruction of justice for his attempt to hide the

firearms underneath the trailer.

                                EXCESSIVE SENTENCE

        In these combined assignments of error, the defendant argues the trial court

erred in its imposition of an excessive sentence and its denial of his motion to

reconsider    sentence.    However, an inspection of the instant record reveals patent

                                              2
errors fatal to the defendant' s habitual offender bill of information, requiring us to

vacate the habitual offender adjudication and sentences, and thus pretermitting

further discussion of the assigned errors.'          See State v. Barber, 94- 0611 ( La. App.

1st Cir. 4110195),    654 So.2d 740, 741- 42; see also State v. King, 2006- 0396 ( La.

App. 1st Cir. 1113106), 2006 WL 3109456, * 8- 9 ( unpublished); State v. Taylor,

54, 110 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 11/ 17/ 21), 329 So. 3d 1141, 1143- 44.

         Herein, the defendant was initially charged by bill of information with two

counts of possession of a firearm by a person convicted of certain felonies, in

violation of La. R. S. 14: 95. 1, and two counts of obstruction ofjustice by tampering

with evidence, in violation of La. R.S. 14: 130. 1( A)( 1) and (B)( 2), as follows:

    1.   Count 1 —   Christopher Bell Jr., on or about May 26, 2019, by having

         previously been convicted of Aggravated Battery on or about April
         18, 2005 under Docket Number 388802, in the 22nd Judicial District
         Court in St.
                    Tammany Parish and also having been convicted of
         Aggravated Battery on or about June 30, 2014 under Docket
         Number 546728, in the 22nd Judicial District Court in St. Tammany
         Parish, and possessing a firearm ...        to -wit: a 9mm pistol.

   2. Count 2 — Christopher Bell Jr., on or about May 26, 2019, by having
         previously been convicted of Aggravated Battery on or about April
         18, 2005 under Docket Number 388802, in the 22nd Judicial District
         Court in St.   Tammany Parish and also having been convicted of
         Aggravated Battery on or about June 30, 2014 under Docket
         Number 546728, in the 22nd Judicial District Court in St. Tammany
         Parish, and possessing a firearm ... to -wit: a 40 caliber pistol.

   3.    Count 3 — Christopher Bell Jr., on or about May 26, 2019, by tampering
         with evidence with the specific intent of distorting the results of any
         criminal investigation or proceeding which may reasonably prove
         relevant to a criminal investigation or proceeding ... to wit: a 9mm
         pistol.

   4. Count 4 —Christopher Bell Jr., on or about May 26, 2019, by tampering

         with evidence with the specific intent of distorting the results of any
         criminal investigation or proceeding which may reasonably prove
         relevant to a criminal investigation or proceeding ... to wit: a 40 caliber
         pistol.

1 In accordance with La. Code Crim. P. art. 920( 2), all appeals are reviewed for errors patent on
the face of the record. State v. Sylve, 2022- 1104 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 24/ 23), 2023 WL 2198829,
  3 ( unpublished). A patent error is one that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings
and proceedings, without inspection of the evidence. La. Code Crim. P. art, 920( 2).

                                                 3
           Emphasis added).

          Thereafter, the State filed a multiple offender bill of information, alleging the

defendant was a fourth offender pursuant to the following prior convictions:

    1.    In the 22nd JDC, St.Tammany Parish, Louisiana for the crime of
          Aggravated Battery on April 18, 2005, under case number 388802;

    2.    In the 22nd JDC, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana for the crime of Illegal
          Possession of Stolen Things over $ 1500 on May 16, 2013, under case
          number 532682;

    3.    In the 22nd JDC,          St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana for the crime of
          Possession of Schedule II to wit: Cocaine on May 16, 2013, under case
          number 533138;

    4.    In the 22°d JDC, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana for the crime of
          Aggravated Criminal Damage to Property on June 30, 2014, under
          case number 546728[.]

           Emphasis added).

          The trial court adjudicated the defendant a fourth felony offender, vacated its

initial    sentences,    and       pursuant to    La.     R.S.   15 :529. 1( A)( 4)( a),   sentenced   the

defendant to fifty years as to each count, to run concurrently.'                 However, as set forth

above and discussed infra, the State utilized the defendant' s 2005 conviction for

aggravated battery as both a predicate felony in the defendant' s firearm charges

under La. R.S.        14: 95. 1 ( Counts 1 and 2), as well as a prior conviction in the

defendant' s habitual offender bill of information (Prior Conviction No. 1).

          A sentence imposed under La. R.S.                 14: 95. 1 may be enhanced under the

habitual offender law, as long as the prior felony conviction used as an element in

the firearm conviction is not also used as a prior felony conviction in the multiple

offender bill of information. State v. Baker, 2006- 2175 ( La. 10116107), 970 So. 2d

948, 958, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 830, 129 S. Ct. 39, 172 L.Ed. 2d 49 ( 2008).                      Thus,

 Louisiana Revised Statute 15: 529. 1 ( A)(4)( a) provides: " If the fourth or subsequent felony is such
that, upon a first conviction the offender would be punishable by imprisonment for any term less
than his natural life then ... [    t] he person shall be sentenced to [ a term of] imprisonment ...   not

less than the longest prescribed for a first conviction but in no event less than twenty years and not
more than his natural life." La. R.S. 15: 529. 1 ( A)(4)( a).

                                                      4
the aggravated battery under docket number 388802 was improperly used by the

State as a prior felony conviction in the habitual offender bill of information for

purposes of sentence enhancement.     See State v. Tyrney, 2022- 0949 ( La. App. 1 st

Cir. 3116123), 363 So. 3d 550, 553- 54, writ denied, 2023- 00552 ( La. 11121123), 373

So. 3d 460.

      Furthermore, the State used two counts from the defendant' s June 2014

conviction under docket number 546728 for purposes of establishing a predicate

felony in the defendant' s instant firearm charges under La. R. S. 14: 95. 1 ( Counts 1

and 2), as well as a prior conviction in the defendant' s habitual offender bill of

information ( Prior Conviction No. 4).   With respect to the instant firearm charges,

the State listed as a predicate the defendant' s conviction for aggravated battery.

With respect to the defendant' s habitual offender bill of information, the State listed

as the defendant' s fourth prior conviction his conviction for aggravated criminal

damage to property. Both the predicate and the prior conviction arose from criminal

charges filed under the same docket number, for which the defendant was convicted

on the same day.

      Pursuant to a 2005 amendment to La. R.S. 15: 529. 1( B) of the Habitual

Offender Act, " fmultiple convictions obtained on the same day prior to October 19,

2004, shall be counted as one conviction for the purpose of this Section." See 2005

La. Acts No. 218, §    1.   Thus, as of August 15, 2005 ( the effective date of the

amendment),   same- day convictions prior to October 19, 2004 are counted as one

conviction; however, those same- day convictions on or after October 19, 2004 may

be counted as separate convictions if the convictions arose from separate or distinct

events.   See State v. Bethley, 2017- 1127 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 419118),      2018 WL

1704096, * 6, writ denied, 2018- 0661 ( La. 2118119), 265 So. 3d 768 ( unpublished);

see also State v. Cass, 44, 411 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 8119109), 17 So. 3d 486, 490. The

issue, thus, is whether the defendant' s prior convictions for aggravated criminal

                                           5
damage to property and aggravated battery, under the same docket number and for

which he was convicted on the same day, arose from a single event or from separate

and distinct events.

       At the habitual offender hearing, the State introduced into evidence the entire

court record for the defendant' s case under docket number 546728.             The bill of

information therein shows that the defendant was charged with three offenses,

aggravated criminal damage to property, a violation of La. R. S. 14: 55, aggravated

battery, a violation of La. R. S. 14: 34, and hit and run, a violation of La. R. S. 14: 100.

According to the bill of information, all three offenses occurred on the same day, on

or about March 3, 2014, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the three

offenses charged in the bill of information and pled to by the defendant arose from

separate or distinct events.   Based on the foregoing, it appears that the defendant' s

2014 convictions should be considered a single conviction, in that the charges appear

to have arisen from a single act, and no evidence was introduced to the contrary.

       We next consider whether separate charges within a single conviction can be

used as both the predicate offense under La. R.S. 14: 95. 1 and as a prior conviction

for habitual offender purposes.    According to Baker, a sentence imposed under La.

R.S. 14: 95. 1 may be enhanced under the habitual offender law, as long as the prior

felony conviction used as an element in the firearms conviction is not also used as a

prior felony conviction in the habitual offender bill of information.          Baker, 970

So. 2d at 957.   Thus, we see no reason why, having been precluded from using the

same conviction to support both the predicate felony under La. R.S. 14: 95. 1 and a

prior felony conviction in the habitual offender bill of information, the State would

then be permitted to divide two charges from the same conviction, arising from

within the same course of criminal conduct, to achieve the same result. Accordingly,

the two charges under docket number 546728 were improperly used by the State as

a predicate to the firearm offenses and as a prior felony conviction in the habitual

                                             0
offender bill of information.        See Cass, 17 So. 3d at 490; see also King, 2006 WL

3109456 at * 9. (" Only one underlying conviction arising out of a multi -count bill of

information can be enhanced when the convictions were entered the same day and

when the offenses arise out of one criminal episode.").

       As Prior Conviction No. 1 (        Aggravated Battery) and Prior Conviction No. 4

 Aggravated Criminal Damage to Property) were improperly used as both a

predicate to the instant firearm offenses and a prior conviction for purposes of

enhancing those same offenses under the habitual offender law, we vacate the trial

court' s habitual offender adjudication and sentences, and the matter is remanded to

the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.'                See Cass, 17

So. 3d at 490; King, 2006 WL 3109456 at * 9.

       CONVICTIONS                   AFFIRMED;               HABITUAL                OFFENDER
ADJUDICATION              AND      SENTENCES            VACATED;           REMANDED            FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

  We note that habitual offender proceedings are not subject to double jeopardy constraints;
therefore, if the State again seeks to enhance a conviction, it must file a new habitual offender bill
of information. See King, 2006 WL 3109456 at * 9.
                                                  7