State v. Abdul, 94 So. 3d 801

Abdul appeals his conviction for attempted second degree murder after a jury trial; he raises four counseled and three pro se assignments of error.
Trial occurred May 3–4, 2011; Abdul was found guilty of count 1; he later pled guilty to count 2 and received concurrent sentences.
The State filed a multiple bill; Abdul was adjudicated a second felony offender and resentenced to 25 years without parole; sentence later vacated.
On appeal, the court affirm the conviction, vacate the multiple offender adjudication and the enhanced sentence, reinstate the original 25-year sentence on the attempted second degree murder conviction, and remand for further proceedings.
Evidence showed Abdul shot the victim seven times; the victim and a witness identified Abdul in lineup/open court; opinions discuss intoxication and specific intent.
Pro se issues include alleged Sixth Amendment conflict of interest and Faretta self-representation; the court held no reversible error and allowed self-representation with standby counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for specific intent to kill	Abdul contends intoxication negates specific intent.	Abdul argues intoxication precluded forming the intent to kill.	Sufficient evidence: specific intent inferred; identity proven; intoxication not proven as defense.
Failure to instruct on voluntary intoxication	Intoxication defense should have been charged; Abdul failed to preserve it.	Trial court should have given intoxication instruction.	Issue waived for review; not reversible error; no abuse of discretion.
Excessive sentence due to multiple offender enhancement	Enhanced sentence valid as multiple offender.	Sentence excessive and improper under the habitual offender statute.	Vacated: adjudication as a second felony offender and the enhanced sentence; remanded for proceedings.
Violation of Art. 873 24-hour delay between denial and sentencing	Judge failed to observe the 24-hour delay mandated by law.	Delay was otherwise harmless or waived.	No reversible error; delay not prejudicial given the outcome; issue moot after vacatur.
Conflict of interest/Faretta waiver and self-representation	Trial court erred by not addressing conflict under Cisco and compelled self-representation.	Conflict existed; right to conflict-free counsel violated; Faretta waiver valid.	No actual conflict of interest; waiver knowingly intelligent; court properly allowed self-representation with standby counsel.

State v. Neal, 796 So.2d 649 (La. 2001) (specific-intent evidence may be inferred from circumstances)
State v. Cepriano, 767 So.2d 893 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2000) (elements of attempted murder and proof of intent)
State v. Williams, 833 So.2d 497 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2002) (positive identification may support conviction)
State v. Durand, 963 So.2d 1028 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2007) (intent may be inferred from circumstances and injuries)
Cisco, State v., 861 So.2d 118 (La. 2003) (conflict-free counsel; waivers; applicable protections)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing waiver)
State v. Leger, 936 So.2d 108 (La. 2006) (courtwide discretion in substitution of counsel)
State v. Hollins, 742 So.2d 671 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1999) (impeachment evidence limits under credibility rules)