124 So. 3d 1247
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- On Nov. 10, 2007, Treva Williams was shot and killed at a bar after a fight; Jarvis Angelle was identified as the shooter and charged with second-degree murder.
- Seven witnesses independently identified Angelle from six‑photo photographic lineups; most were certain and reported no officer coercion; one witness had seen a news report beforehand.
- Three witnesses made identifications nearly a year later but their accounts remained consistent with earlier identifications.
- Angelle moved to suppress the out‑of‑court photographic identifications; the trial court denied the motion after a hearing (an expert proffer by defense counsel was excluded).
- Angelle pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of manslaughter (reserving appellate rights), and was sentenced to 40 years at hard labor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for failing to provide expert at suppression hearing | State: counsel acted reasonably; expert proffer was excluded by court | Angelle: counsel was ineffective for not providing expert assistance on lineups | Court: No ineffective assistance; counsel hired an expert and Angelle failed to show prejudice |
| 2. Motion to suppress photographic identifications | State: lineups were not unduly suggestive and identifications were reliable | Angelle: six‑photo lineups and procedure were suggestive, risking misidentification | Court: Denial affirmed — defendant did not show undue suggestiveness or substantial likelihood of misidentification under Manson factors |
| 3. Excessive sentence (40 years hard labor) | State: sentence within discretion given facts and evidence supporting murder-level culpability | Angelle: sentence is unconstitutionally harsh/excessive | Court: Sentence not excessive; within trial court’s discretion and proportionate to offense |
| 4. Limits on mitigation testimony at sentencing (time limits) | State: procedural limits did not deprive due process because no false information needed rebuttal | Angelle: limits prevented full mitigation and violated due process | Court: No due process violation — defendant did not rebut false information relied on by judge |
| 5. Plea acceptance without amending indictment | State: manslaughter is lesser‑included offense; formal amendment not required with consent | Angelle: plea invalid because indictment not amended | Court: No error — plea to lesser included offense permissible without formal amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (totality of circumstances test for reliability of suggestive identifications)
- State v. Broadway, 753 So.2d 801 (La. 1999) (defendant bears burden to prove suggestive identification; applies Manson factors)
- State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729 (La. 1984) (identification procedure suggestiveness standard)