169 So. 3d 535
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Larry St. Amant Jr. was tried by jury on 11 counts: eight counts of distribution of cocaine and three counts of distribution of heroin based on eight undercover purchases over ~one month; jury convicted on all counts.
- Undercover agent (“Agent Smith”) arranged purchases by calling a single phone number (504-231-9916, identified at trial as defendant’s number) and met at River Ridge; many transactions involved a tan SUV (Chevrolet Trailblazer) and a middleman (“Craig”) who delivered drugs to the agent.
- Identification evidence: Agent Smith made a positive photographic-lineup ID after a final daylight hand-to-hand sale in which she observed the distributor (biting his shirt and wearing sunglasses); a sergeant who knew defendant identified him as the SUV driver in surveillance; a cooperating witness (Craig) testified defendant’s number was used and that he picked up drugs from defendant.
- Sentencing: trial court initially imposed twenty years hard labor on each count (first five years without benefits), concurrent; after a multiple-offender proceeding defendant was adjudicated a second felony offender on one heroin count and resentenced on that count to thirty years without benefit.
- On appeal defendant challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence (identity), (2) denial of his request to call the undercover agent at the pretrial suppression hearing (confrontation/fair hearing), and (3) excessiveness of sentences; appellate court affirmed convictions and sentences as amended and remanded for correction of errors patent related to benefit restrictions and the uniform commitment order.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove identity | Evidence (undercover agent ID, photographic lineup, witness who knew defendant as SUV driver, cooperating middleman linking phone number and pickups) sufficed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt | Identification was unreliable: agent only got a good look once (face partially obscured), earlier descriptions inconsistent, ear shape ("cauliflower ears") is common | Affirmed. Viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, State negated reasonable probability of misidentification; jury credibility choice upheld. |
| Denial of request to call undercover agent at suppression hearing (confrontation / fair hearing) | Officer who ran lineup (Det. Taranto) testified about procedure and investigation; no evidence the lineup was suggestive; officer’s testimony sufficed for suppression hearing | Trial court erred by denying subpoenaed undercover agent at suppression hearing, denying defendant effective confrontation and a fair hearing; agent’s presence was necessary | Affirmed. Pretrial suppression hearings do not implicate Sixth Amendment confrontation right; trial court properly relied on detective’s testimony and legitimate safety concerns for undercover agent; agent later testified at trial and was cross-examined. |
| Excessiveness of sentences (including enhanced sentence under multiple bill) | Sentences within statutory ranges, court considered aggravating/mitigating factors, concurrent terms, and defendant’s criminal history — not excessive | Sentences are disproportionate given small quantities, non-violent offenses, defendant’s family ties and work history; trial court failed to weigh mitigating factors sufficiently | Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse broad sentencing discretion; enhanced sentence as a second felony offender was within permissible range and below maximum. |
| Errors patent / commitment order and benefit restrictions | Court acknowledged clerical errors and statutory limits on denial of benefits; requested corrections | N/A (court ordered corrections) | Court amended benefit restrictions to conform to statutes (2 years without benefit for cocaine counts; removed parole prohibition on two heroin counts) and remanded to correct uniform commitment order to list all offense dates and multiple-bill resentencing date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Hams, 998 So.2d 55 (La. 2008) (pretrial motion hearings do not implicate Sixth Amendment confrontation right)
- State v. Weathersby, 29 So.3d 499 (La. 2010) (reaffirming confrontation analysis for pretrial matters)
- State v. Ray, 115 So.3d 17 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (identification: State must negate reasonable probability of misidentification)
- State v. Suggs, 81 So.3d 815 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (positive identification by one witness can support conviction)
- State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975) (errors-patent review authority)