296 So.3d 1281
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- On Jan. 20, 2018, Jefferson Parish detectives stopped Shawn A. Clark after a brief suspicious contact with a known suspect; officers found a pill bottle with 46 multi‑colored pills and ~1 gram marijuana in the car. Twenty-one pills tested positive for a total of 3 grams of methamphetamine.
- Clark was tried by jury and convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (<28 grams); initially sentenced to 10 years hard labor.
- The State filed a habitual‑offender bill alleging two predicate convictions (2007 and 2011); Clark was adjudicated a third felony offender, his prior sentence vacated, and he was resentenced to 20 years at hard labor.
- During trial Clark made an oral motion to recuse the trial judge, claiming the judge had previously prosecuted him on a predicate offense; no written recusal motion was filed.
- Clark also appealed claiming the appellate record/transcripts were incomplete and that his enhanced sentence was excessive.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: (1) recusal claim not reviewable because Clark failed to file a written motion as required; (2) transcript omissions were cured by supplementation and Clark showed no prejudice; (3) 20‑year enhanced sentence not unconstitutionally excessive given criminal history and circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Clark's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of trial judge | Oral request improper; La. C.Cr.P. art. 674 requires written motion; judge presumed impartial | Judge previously prosecuted Clark on a predicate; appearance of bias; judge pressured plea | Denied review: no written motion filed; oral motion presents nothing to review; presumption of impartiality stands |
| Incomplete/inaccurate transcript | Record later supplemented with voir dire bench‑conference transcripts; no prejudice shown | Missing portions of voir dire/bench conferences impair appellate review and may hide improper denial of challenges for cause | Moot/denied: second supplement cured omissions; transcript now adequate; Clark failed to show prejudice |
| Excessive sentence (habitual offender) | 20 years within statutory enhanced range for 3rd‑felony offender; extensive drug priors and parole status justify maximum | Trial court failed to cite La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 factors; plea offer was for 3 years and Clark got 20 after trial | Denied: review limited to constitutional excessiveness; sentence within statutory limits and supported by record and offender history; not unconstitutionally excessive |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crothers, 278 So.2d 12 (La. 1973) (written recusal motion required)
- State v. Neely, 3 So.3d 532 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008) (oral recusation presents nothing for review)
- State v. Castleberry, 758 So.2d 749 (La. 1999) (incomplete record requires showing of prejudice to reverse)
- State v. Lynch, 441 So.2d 732 (La. 1983) (transcript prevails over conflicting minute entry)
- State v. Cann, 471 So.2d 701 (La. 1985) (constitutional standard against excessive punishment)
- State v. Lobato, 603 So.2d 739 (La. 1992) (framework for reviewing proportionality of sentence)
- State v. Baillio, 144 So.3d 1162 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2014) (maximum sentence upheld for persistent drug offender)