94 So. 3d 822
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- S.L., a 16-year-old, was charged in juvenile court on five petitions (G-K) for possession of marijuana, resisting an officer by flight, illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile, simple burglary, and possession of a firearm while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance.
- Trial resulted in delinquency adjudications on all five counts on June 22, 2011.
- A probation revocation by an ad hoc judge led to a six-month suspended disposition, followed by two-year dispositions on the five offenses running concurrently with the six-month term and with a separate obstruction of justice disposition.
- An Order Correcting Illegal Sentence vacated the marijuana disposition on double jeopardy grounds and modified two other dispositions to six months each, to run consecutively to the obstruction disposition.
- On appeal, the court vacates the marijuana adjudication, reverses the illegal handgun by juvenile and resisting arrest adjudications, and vacates and remands the simple burglary and possession of firearm with controlled dangerous substance adjudications for new trials.
- The court discusses issues of double jeopardy, sufficiency of evidence, hearsay, ineffective assistance of counsel, and errors patent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does double jeopardy bar the handgun-by-juvenile charge? | State concedes the handgun-by-juvenile adjudication should be vacated. | S.L. contends the adjudications should stand as charged. | Vacate the illegal handgun-by-juvenile adjudication. |
| Are the remaining adjudications supported by sufficient evidence? | Evidence supports resisting arrest, simple burglary, and gun-with-drug charge. | Evidence is inadequate or improperly linked for some charges. | Resisting arrest is reversed; simple burglary and gun-with-drug require new trials due to evidentiary issues. |
| Is the simple burglary identity supported by admissible evidence? | Describe the perpetrator identity using a dispatch description as part of the State's case. | Dispatch description constitutes inadmissible hearsay impacting identity. | Hearsay description not harmless; new trial ordered on simple burglary. |
| Was the evidence of possession of a firearm with marijuana sufficient without the confession? | Confession established actual possession; admissibility not central if considered. | Statement should have been suppressed; its admissibility affects nexus/possession analysis. | New trial required for possession of firearm with marijuana due to failure to suppress confession. |
| Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing to suppress the confession and other failures? | Ineffective assistance due to failure to file suppression and other motions. | No ineffective assistance claimed beyond suppression failure. | Ineffective assistance established; remand for new trial on affected counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sandifer, 679 So.2d 1324 (La. 1996) (same-evidence double jeopardy test)
- State v. Garcia, 66 So.3d 24 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (vacatur of lesser offense when double jeopardy violated)
- State ex rel. D.W., 47 So.3d 1048 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (juvenile evidence standards applicable to delinquency)
- State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La.1992) (sufficiency review framework in criminal cases)
- State v. Arbuthnot, 367 So.2d 296 (La.1979) (hearsay identity concerns similar to improper bolstering)
- State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321 (La.1990) (harmless error analysis for erroneously admitted evidence)
- State v. Broadway, 753 So.2d 801 (La.1999) (police information and hearsay considerations in searches)
- State v. Benoit, 960 So.2d 279 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2007) (identity proof and sufficiency in burglary cases)