146 So. 3d 716
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- In July 2011 two masked, armed men forced entry into a home; one fired a sawed-off shotgun through a small bathroom door while Mark Williamson was inside and holding the door closed; Williamson survived by playing dead.
- Christopher Weathersby pleaded guilty to unauthorized entry and testified that Wesley Austin brought and fired the shotgun, and threatened to kill Williamson.
- Physical evidence: shotgun blast holes at doorknob level, pellet damage to bathtub; a green bandana found where Austin stayed; witnesses placed Austin in possession of a short-barreled shotgun and a Colt 1911 pistol; Austin’s cell‑phone records put him in the area.
- Austin was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and home invasion; sentenced to 30 years (attempted murder) plus 20 years (home invasion) consecutively, with portions without benefits.
- Austin appealed raising multiple claims: insufficiency of evidence (intent and identity), improper admission/authentication of cellphone records, denial of tape‑recorded interview for impeachment, speedy-trial and statutory 24-hour sentencing delay issues, excessiveness of consecutive sentences, and ineffective assistance (failure to inform re: plea offer).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for attempted second-degree murder (intent and identity) | State: evidence (surveillance/following, shotgun blast at knob level, witness testimony, physical evidence) supports inference Austin intended to kill Williamson and that Austin was shooter | Austin: no proof he specifically intended to kill or that he fired the gun | Court: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, jury could infer specific intent to kill and that Austin fired gun; conviction affirmed |
| Authentication/admissibility of cellphone records & Confrontation Clause | State: records are non‑testimonial machine‑generated evidence and were certified/authenticated by AT&T custodian and officer handling chain | Austin: records lacked proper certification/authentication and violated Confrontation Clause; not admissible as business records | Court: phone records are not hearsay/testimonial; AT&T declaration under 28 U.S.C. §1746 plus officer testimony authenticated records and chain of custody — admissible |
| Use of Williamson’s recorded police interview for impeachment | Austin: tape should have been played because interview didn’t identify Austin (implicating Saunders King) and would impeach Williamson’s trial ID | State: foundation for impeachment not laid; Williamson later admitted he said he heard King and that ID of Austin occurred later | Court: trial court properly required foundational confrontation; counsel elicited admission on cross; tape not admissible for impeachment once witness admitted prior statement — denial harmless |
| Speedy trial (constitutional and statutory) | Austin: delays (motions filed; trial dates continued) violated speedy-trial rights and caused witness unavailability | State: delays were reasonably caused (witness incarceration/transport); defendant did not timely assert; statutory claim moot post-conviction | Court: Article 701 claim moot; Barker factors do not show constitutional violation given reasons for delay and lack of prejudice |
| 24‑hour delay after denial of motion for new trial before sentencing (La. C.Cr.P. art. 873) | Austin: sentencing occurred the day after denial; required 24‑hour wait, so sentence should be vacated | State: no prejudice; long interval between conviction and sentence and court had considered letters | Court: failure to observe 24‑hour delay harmless — no prejudice; sentence stands |
| Excessiveness of consecutive sentences | Austin: consecutive 30 + 20 year terms are constitutionally excessive | State: trial court considered criminal history, gravity, viciousness, and public danger; statutory range permits sentence | Court: sentencing within statutory limits, trial court gave reasons for consecutiveness, not grossly disproportionate — sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (speedy‑trial balancing test)
- State v. Williams, 103 So.3d 558 (Louisiana standard on sufficiency review and witness credibility)
- State v. Tate, 851 So.2d 921 (Louisiana precedent on sufficiency review)
- State v. Thompson, 842 So.2d 330 (discretion in sentencing review)
- State v. Freeman, 34 So.3d 541 (intent may be inferred from pointing and firing a gun)