192 So. 3d 822
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- On August 25, 2014, two armed men entered a Walgreens during an overnight shift, forced three employees/customers into the employee break room at gunpoint, threatened to kill them unless the store safe was opened, patted down victims and stole at least one cellphone; victims were confined for ~45–60 minutes.
- Police apprehended the defendant, Ben Amos, near the scene; officers recovered a firearm from the store after being told by the defendant he left it there.
- A jury convicted Amos of three counts of aggravated kidnapping, one count of armed robbery with a firearm (as to Ms. Nguyen), and two counts of attempted armed robbery with a firearm (as to Mr. Robert and Mr. Schiro).
- Trial court sentenced Amos to life without benefit for each aggravated kidnapping count, 50 years for the armed robbery count, and 15 years for each attempted armed robbery count; Amos appealed.
- Appellate court found: convictions affirmed; the sentences for the armed-robbery counts were indeterminate because the trial court did not specify the mandatory five-year firearm enhancement, so those sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing; ineffective-assistance claims largely deferred to post-conviction relief except for sentencing-related claims, which were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Amos) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated kidnapping | Evidence shows victims were confined at gunpoint, threatened to force compliance to obtain safe contents, satisfying intent-to-extort and imprison/secrete elements | No intent to extort; victims not moved to a different location so kidnapping elements not met | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for aggravated kidnapping under La. R.S. 14:44(3) (imprisoning/forcible secreting) and intent to obtain property inferred from threats and confinement |
| Sufficiency for armed robbery / attempted armed robbery | Ms. Nguyen’s phone was taken (armed robbery); Robert and Schiro were forced/treated as potential victims showing intent to take property (attempts) | Lacks specific intent to take property from Robert/Schiro; nothing was taken from Schiro and he was not patted down | Affirmed: armed robbery (Nguyen) and attempted armed robbery (Robert, Schiro) supported by direct and circumstantial evidence (concurrence dissents as to Schiro) |
| Excessive sentence challenge | Sentences are within statutory limits but must be reviewed for excessiveness under state constitution | Sentences are excessive; trial court failed to consider mitigating factors and did not file motion to reconsider | Partially moot: life sentences for aggravated kidnapping affirmed (trial court adequately considered guidelines); robbery sentences vacated/remanded for clarification due to indeterminate firearm enhancement |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s performance did not prejudice defendant at sentencing; some claims better raised in post-conviction proceedings | Counsel failed to raise intellectual-deficiency/coercion defenses, failed to challenge Miranda waiver, did not develop mitigating evidence, and did not file motion to reconsider sentence | Denied on direct appeal for sentencing-related claims (no prejudice shown); other ineffective-assistance claims deferred to post-conviction relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes the standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (sets the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Arnold, 548 So.2d 920 (La. 1989) (extortion intent for aggravated kidnapping may be inferred from threats and victims’ reasonable belief they would not be released unless they complied)
- State v. Shapiro, 431 So.2d 372 (La. 1982) (circumstantial-evidence principles and proving elements by inference)
- State v. Williams, 842 So.2d 1143 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (moving and confining a person within a dwelling can satisfy imprisoning/forcible secreting element)
- State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La. 1979) (constitutional excessiveness standard for sentences)