81 So. 3d 760
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Barfield was convicted of simple escape under La.R.S. 14:110 after leaving a house arrest program.
- He was enrolled in the Rapides Parish Sheriff's Office Home Incarceration Program, tethered by an ankle transmitter and monitored; authority over his movements was restricted to approved activities.
- Defendant left home without authorization, removed the ankle transmitter, and evaded law enforcement; his flight led to an arrest the following day in a red Ford F150.
- Evidence included store surveillance from Dollar General linking Defendant to the escape and the recovery of the ankle transmitter and bracelet; surveillance video was later overwritten.
- At sentencing, the trial court imposed an enhanced sentence as a habitual offender, later vacated and amended to address parole eligibility; appellate review granted limited remand for clarification of the habitual offender sentence and correction of parole denial.
- The conviction was affirmed; the court amended the sentence to remove the parole denial and remanded for clarification on whether the sentence is to be served with or without hard labor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for simple escape | Barfield escaped while under house arrest, satisfying 14:110. | Not imprisoned or under custody; no lawful custody at the time of escape. | Sufficient evidence; unlawful departure from lawful custody under 14:110 established. |
| Validity of the Bill of Information under La.R.S. 14:110(E) | Bill alleged ‘escape from house arrest’ as an alternate form of the offense; sufficient to charge. | Bill defective because it cannot prove escape from custody under house arrest; prosecutorial defense on merits, not proper for quash. | No error; the bill was not defective and was a proper pleading. |
| Jury instructions and house arrest interpretation; preservation | Court correctly instructed that house arrest can fall within 14:110; defense sought special instructions not warranted. | Trial court failed to give special jury instructions clarifying house arrest scope and presumption issues; preserved arguments on misinstruction. | Court properly instructed; denial of special instructions not reversible error given preservation limits. |
| Admission of statements by Mrs. Barfield and Confrontation Clause | Statements were res gestae and non-testimonial; admissible and non-conflicting with spousal privilege. | Violates spousal privilege and Confrontation Clause; evidence is prejudicial and inadmissible. | Statements admitted; non-testimonial res gestae; Confrontation Clause not violated. |
| Excessive sentence; patent error regarding parole | Enhanced sentence within statutory range and properly imposed. | Parole denial improperly attached to sentence; error patent and excessive. | Sentence affirmed as amended; remand for clarification on hard labor/ parole status. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wommack, 770 So.2d 365 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2000) (transcript controls when minutes conflict with minutes)
- State v. Pettus, 68 So.3d 28 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (remand for clarification of habitual offender sentence)
- State v. Tate, 747 So.2d 519 (La.1989) (parole eligibility limits in enhanced sentences)
- State v. Dossman, 940 So.2d 876 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2006) (remand and parole considerations in habitual offender context)
- State v. Bullock, 576 So.2d 453 (La.1991) (sufficiency of custody evidence for escape)
- State v. Narcisse, 512 So.2d 565 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1987) (res gestae and spousal privilege interaction)