91 So. 3d 1080
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant William Anderson was convicted of two counts of sexual battery, one count of oral sexual battery, and one count of molestation of a juvenile.
- The trial court ordered ten years on counts 1-2, fifteen years at hard labor on counts 3-4, all without probation, parole, or suspension, and all to run consecutively to each other and to a prior seven-year sentence.
- On appeal, defendant challenged double jeopardy, denial of Motion to Quash, and claimed the sentence was illegal and excessive.
- The State and defense briefed a potential double jeopardy issue; the court ultimately found no double jeopardy violation.
- Evidence showed L.L.P. engaged in a sexual relationship with the defendant starting at age fourteen, including sexual acts and control/relational dynamics, as well as other witnesses relating to S.A. and D.A., establishing a pattern of behavior.
- The court held the evidence sufficient to prove the element of control or supervision for molestation of a juvenile and noted errors patent requiring remand for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the molestation of a juvenile sentence illegal/excessive? | State argued proof of control/supervision supported enhanced penalty. | Anderson contends no control or supervision, thus unlawful sentence. | Evidence supported control; sentence upheld in part but remanded for resentencing due to other error patents. |
| Do multiple convictions for distinct offenses violate double jeopardy? | State contends separate offenses require separate proof and convictions allowed. | Anderson argues multiple punishments for the same act violate double jeopardy. | Not a double jeopardy violation; offenses are distinct with separate proofs. |
| Did the denial of the Motion to Quash based on speedy trial/prescription run afoul of ex post facto and due process? | State maintains timely institution of charges under extended prescriptive period for offenses involving minors. | Anderson argues the pre- amendment prescription improperly limited prosecution. | Charge timely under amended prescriptive period; no ex post facto violation. |
| Were the defendant's sentences properly structured with respect to 24-hour delay and concatenated sentencing? | State seeks affirmed sentences; delay not harmless error given non-mandatory nature. | Anderson challenges non-mandatory sentences and consecutive terms. | Error patent; sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing. |
| Should the court have vacated and remanded on the consecutive sentence issue despite other findings? | State asserts proper consideration of consecutive terms. | Anderson argues improper consecutive sentencing. | Procedural defects necessitated vacating sentences and remanding for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. A.B.M., 52 So.3d 1021 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2010) (sufficiency of proof for control or supervision element in molestation of a juvenile)
- State v. Onstead, 875 So.2d 908 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2004) (evidence of control or supervision over victim)
- State v. Adkisson, 602 So.2d 718 (La. 1992) (legislative extension of time limits for prosecution admissible if before accrual)
- State v. Ferrie, 144 So.2d 380 (La. 1962) (ex post facto considerations on prescription amendments)
- State v. Romero, 692 So.2d 609 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1997) (ex post facto and prescription extension case analogue)
- State v. Jenkins, 57 So.3d 405 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2011) (facial sufficiency to support multiple offenses in same episode)