Court Opinion

ID: 9896337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:09:34.78205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:42.561807
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                              STATE OF LOUISIANA

                               COURT OF APPEAL

                                 FIRST CIRCUIT

                                   2023 KA 0303

                              STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                     VERSUS

                              JOSEPH PAUL GRANT

                               DATE OF JUDGMENT.         NOV 0 9 2023

       APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY- SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
V           PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY, STATE OF LOUISIANA
                         NUMBER 697- 2019, DIVISION G

                    HONORABLE SCOTT GARDNER, JUDGE

Warren LeDoux Montgomery                     Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney                             State of Louisiana
Matthew Caplan

Assistant District Attorney
Covington, Louisiana

Gwendolyn K. Brown                           Counsel for Defendant -Appellant
Baton Rouge, Louisiana                       Joseph Paul Grant

                BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ.

Disposition:   CONVICTION,    HABITUAL   OFFENDER ADJUDICATION,     AND   SENTENCE
AFFU MED.
CHUTZ, J.

       The       defendant,   Joseph Paul    Grant,    was    charged by amended bill             of

information with first degree robbery, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 64. 1. 1 Prior to his

arraignment and following a sanity hearing, the trial court found that the defendant

was not competent to proceed.           Subsequently, after his competency was found to

be restored, the defendant pled not guilty. After a trial by jury, he was found guilty

as   charged.       The trial court denied the defendant' s motion for post -verdict

judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial.              The defendant was sentenced to

forty years at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of

sentence.        After he admitted the allegations of the multiple offender bill of

information filed by the state, the defendant was adjudicated a fourth -felony

habitual offender.        The trial court vacated the original sentence imposed and

sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment without the benefit of probation,

parole,    or   suspension of sentence.'     The trial court denied the defendant' s oral

motion to reconsider sentence.

       The defendant now appeals,            maintaining that his enhanced sentence is

unconstitutionally excessive and that he was denied the effective assistance of

counsel.        For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction, habitual offender

adjudication, and sentence.

1 The defendant was originally charged with simple robbery, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 65,
2 The defendant admitted to the allegations contained in the multiple offender bill of information,
which set forth the following prior convictions: ( 1) Theft of Goods over $ 540 on April 14, 2008
in Docket No. 07- 6671 in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson; ( 2)
Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine on November 27, 2007 in Docket No. 414- 660 in
the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans; ( 3) Purse Snatching on January 17,    1992 in
Docket No. 349- 230 in the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans; ( 4) Armed Robbery
on January 17, 1992 in Docket No. 347-789 in the Criminal District Court for the Parish of
Orleans; ( 5) Attempted Manslaughter on August 26, 1985 in Docket Na. 305- 085 in the Criminal
District Court for the Parish of Orleans.
                                              FACTS

       At approximately 12: 50 a.m. on April 4, 2019, Serenity Wright was working

alone at the Shell gas station located on Old Spanish Trail Road in Slidell,

Louisiana.     While Wright was standing behind the counter at the register, the

defendant entered the store, walked behind the counter to where Wright was

standing, and grabbed her.            The defendant pinned Wright against the counter,

pulled her hair, punched her, and told her to give him the money or he would shoot

her. The defendant then stole five packs of cigarettes and most of the cash that was

inside the register.       He then exited the store, ran to his waiting vehicle, and left the

premises.

        Wright locked the door and called 911, and the police arrived approximately

five minutes later.        The responding officer, Officer Michael Koch with the Slidell

Police Department, watched the              store' s surveillance footage and obtained a

description of the suspect and his vehicle, which was determined to be a dark

colored Infiniti SUV,             Using the information obtained from the surveillance

footage, officers apprehended the defendant during a traffic stop several hours after

the robbery.

                                      EXCESSIVE SENTENCE

        In his first assignment of error, the defendant argues that the trial court erred

by imposing an excessive sentence.'

        After adjudicating the defendant a fourth -felony habitual offender, the trial

court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without benefit of

probation,     parole,       or    suspension     of    sentence,     pursuant      to    La.    R.S.

15: 529. 1( A)(4)( c). 4    Defense counsel then stated, without articulating any specific

3 Although the defendant listed two separate assignments of error in his brief, he argued both
assignments of error together. We will address each of the assignments of error separately.

4 Louisiana. Revised Statutes 15: 529. 1( A)(4)( c) states: " If the fourth felony and two of the prior
felonies are felonies defined as a crime of violence under R.S. 14: 2( B) ...     the person shall be

                                                   3
objection or grounds, "      Your Honor, at this time, we would move for Motion for

Reconsideration."      The trial court denied the oral motion, and no written motion to

reconsider sentence was filed.

         Herein, the defendant failed to adequately preserve this issue for appeal.

While defense counsel made an oral " motion for reconsideration," he did not

specify the grounds upon which the objection was based. Failure to make or file a

motion to reconsider sentence or to include a specific ground upon which a motion

to reconsider sentence may be based, including a claim of excessiveness, shall

preclude the State or the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or

from urging any ground on appeal that was not raised in the motion.            La. Code

Crim. P. art. 8$ 1. 1( E).      Where the defendant failed to object to his sentence as

excessive and failed to state any specific circumstances that would justify a more

lenient sentence, the defendant is procedurally barred from having this assignment

of error reviewed.      See State v. Brown, 12- 0752 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4110113), 2013

WL 1459156, * 7 ( unpublished).

                      INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

         In his second assignment of error, the defendant contends his trial counsel

was ineffective based on his failure to file a detailed, written motion to reconsider

sentence.
             Specifically, the defendant argues that his trial counsel failed to argue

that the statutorily mandated sentence of life imprisonment was excessive due to

his diminished mental capacity at the time the crime was committed.

         As a general rule, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is more

properly raised in an application for post -conviction relief in the district court

rather    than   on   appeal.    This is because post -conviction relief provides the

opportunity for a full evidentiary hearing under La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.

However, when the record is sufficient, this court may resolve this issue on direct

imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life, without benefit of parole, probation, or
suspension of sentence."

                                              4
appeal in the interest of judicial economy. State v Miller, 15- 1031 ( La. App. 1st

Cir. 12123115),   185 So. 3d 811, 815, writ denied, 16- 0152 ( La. 1/ 23/ 17), 215 So. 3d

N.

      A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth

Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 13, of the Louisiana

Constitution. State v. LaCaze, 99- 0584 ( La. 1125/ 02), 824 So. 2d 1063, 1078, cert.

denied, 537 U.S.     865,   123 S. Ct. 263,       154 L.Ed.2d 110 ( 2002).   A claim of

ineffectiveness of counsel is analyzed under the two-pronged test developed by the

United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104

S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 ( 1984).

      In order to establish that his trial attorney was ineffective, the defendant

must first show the attorney' s performance was deficient, which requires               a

showing that counsel made errors so serious that he was not functioning as counsel

guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Secondly, the defendant must prove that the

deficient performance actually prejudiced him by showing that the errors were so

serious that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Miller, 185 So. 2d at 815.

      The failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence in itself does not

constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. However, if the defendant can show a

reasonable probability that, but for counsel' s error, his sentence would have been

different, a basis for an ineffective assistance claim may be found.         Id. at 816.

Moreover, when the sentence was imposed pursuant to the Habitual Offender Law,

the defendant must rebut the presumption that the sentence was constitutional.

State v. Johnson, 97- 1906 ( La. 3/ 4/ 98), 709 So. 2d 672, 676.

       On appeal, the defendant argues that his trial counsel failed to articulate to

the court the extent to which his mental health affected his culpability for the

instant offense, as well as for his predicate convictions.            In support of his

argument, the defendant points out that the trial court previously observed his

                                              V
emotional and mental distress and determined he was not competent to proceed at

that time.      Accordingly, the defendant contends his counsel was ineffective in

failing to argue, either orally or in a written motion, that the sentence of life

imprisonment was excessive due to the defendant' s diminished capacity and

obvious mental health concerns.

       We have reviewed the record herein and find that it is insufficient to make a

definitive finding as to the defendant' s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

At a sanity hearing on August 9, 2019, the trial court referenced a prior hearing

where the defendant was " visibly           disturbed, disoriented, and did not seem to

understand why he was [ in court]." Accordingly, pursuant to a doctor' s report and

both parties' stipulation, the trial court found that the defendant was not competent

to proceed.      On June 3, 2020, based on the medical reports prepared after the

defendant' s reevaluation,       the parties stipulated that his competency had been

restored.    The record before us, however, does not contain the defendant' s medical

records (
            either prior to the instant offense or leading up to his competency

restoration),
                the medical reports prepared regarding his mental competency, or any

additional information regarding his mental capacity at the time the instant offense

was committed, or his overall mental health and acuity, or impairments thereto.

       Accordingly, considering the nature of the defendant' s allegations, we find

that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim cannot possibly be reviewed on

appeal.     Only in an evidentiary hearing in the district court, where the defendant

could present evidence beyond what is contained in the instant record, could these

allegations be sufficiently investigated.'          See State v. Tingle, 12- 1928 ( La. App.

1st Cir. 617113), 2013 WL 2454316, * 7 ( unpublished); see also State v. Dantin, 19-

0407 ( La.    App. 1st Cir.       12117119),   291    So. 3d   1096,   1102.   Therefore, this

assignment of error is not subject to appellate review.

5 The defendant would first have to satisfy the requirements of La. Code Crim. P. arts 924, et
seq., in order to receive such a hearing.
                                                6
   CONVICTION,   HABITUAL   OFFENDER   ADJUDICATION,   AND
SENTENCE AFFIRMED.