State v. Bannister
2012 La. App. LEXIS 156
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- On Sept. 4, 2006 (Labor Day), St. Amant was driving west on Jefferson Hwy in a Cadillac when a white vehicle pulled up and a man fired at him; the driver’s window shattered and St. Amant fled toward McDonald’s, later exiting the restaurant.
- Williams, McDonald’s shift manager, testified a black man with a gun entered the restaurant and told him he could not run for long; another black man then left in a white vehicle.
- Deputies observed substantial blood in the victim’s car, shattered door window, a bullet hole in the driver’s door, and a projectile in the chrome molding, but no weapon or casings were recovered at the scene.
- St. Amant later identified Bannister as the shooter; Detective Morales recorded that Bannister admitted shooting and intended to turn himself in; a 9 mm handgun was recovered from Bannister’s Beechgrove residence.
- Two stipulations: Louise Waltzer would testify that the recovered projectile came from Bannister’s 9 mm handgun; Sarah Corgan would testify that DNA on the handgun slide was consistent with Bannister’s profile.
- Indicted February 1, 2007 for one count of attempted second degree murder; trial in February 2011 resulted in a conviction and a 25-year sentence, with a later enhanced sentence after a second-felony-offender adjudication; the we proceed to appeal, challenging sufficiency, cleansing period, excessiveness, and sentencing procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of intent and self-defense | State argues Bannister had specific intent to kill; self-defense unsupported. | Bannister contends no proof of intent and that actions were in self-defense. | Sufficient evidence of specific intent; self-defense claim rejected. |
| Cleansing period proof | State must prove ten-year gap; discharge date shown by pardons/documents. | Bannister challenges the authenticity/adequacy of predicate documentation. | Cleansing period proven by first-offender pardon date; within ten years of discharge date. |
| Excessive sentence | State asserts sentence within range; proportional to offense. | Bannister contends sentence excessive given motivation and minimal harm. | No abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory range and supported by circumstances. |
| Art. 873 sentencing delay error | State maintains proper timing; no 24-hour delay requirement after denial of new trial. | Bannister argues error for imposing sentence immediately after denial. | Error to sentence immediately; vacate underlying and enhanced sentences; remand for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Hebert, 930 So.2d 1039 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2006) (reasonable doubt sufficiency standard for specific intent)
- State v. Hoffman, 768 So.2d 542 (La. 2000) (specific intent may be inferred from conduct)
- State v. Batiste, 958 So.2d 24 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2007) (inference of specific intent from firing a weapon)
- State v. Nguyen, 888 So.2d 900 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2004) (habits-of-sentencing and identity proof in priors)
- State v. Hollins, 742 So.2d 671 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1999) (ten-year cleansing period in habitual offender context)
- State v. Anderson, 349 So.2d 311 (La. 1977) (ten-year cleansing period baseline)
- State v. Boss, 848 So.2d 75 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2003) (procedure for vacating sentences when multiple offender applies)
- State v. Young, 996 So.2d 302 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2008) (remand guidance on sentencing corrections)