115 So. 3d 564
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Ron Brown was convicted of simple burglary under La. R.S. 14:62 and sentenced to six years at hard labor, with credit for time served, and a mandatory fine was not imposed.
- The crime occurred April 29, 2011, at a rear storage shed behind Blue Dot Donut Shop; missing items were valued around $130.
- Witness Brandon Singleton testified the drinks were taken from inside the shed; Detective Vaught testified the shed door was ajar and items could be seen from outside.
- Brown gave a recorded custodial statement after being advised of rights; police obtained warrants to search Brown’s residence and his cousin’s residence.
- A search of Brown’s Wayside Drive residence recovered some of the stolen items; no evidence was found at the Salem Drive residence.
- The district court failed to impose the statutorily required fine and sentenced Brown immediately after denying post-verdict motions, though Brown waived the 24-hour delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for burglary | Brown contends evidence shows only theft, not entry into the shed. | Brown argues the drinks were outside the shed, so no entry occurred. | Sufficient evidence supports simple burglary; Brown confessed and other evidence showed entry. |
| Admissibility of statement/evidence regarding attorney-client privilege | Privilege was violated by sharing Brown’s information with detectives, tainting the statement and warrants. | Attorney-client privilege shield should suppress fruits of the tainted investigation. | Privilege not shown to apply; identity/time/telephone information not privileged; assignment lacks merit. |
| Article 873 delay and waiver | Waiting period required before sentencing after denying new trial; error to sentence immediately. | Brown waived the 24-hour delay; timely sentencing permissible. | Waiver valid; sentencing without 24-hour delay proper given Brown’s waiver. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (pro se claim) based on failure to photograph | Counsel should have photographed scene to support defense theory. | Lack of photographs prejudiced Brown’s defense. | No reversible error; photographs not required; other evidence and testimony supported the verdict; error harmless. |
| Excessive sentence | Six-year term within statutory maximum may be excessive given circumstances. | Sentence within statutory limits is appropriate and supported by the record. | Six-year term not excessive; remand for imposition of mandatory fine only. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 859 So.2d 751 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2003) (remand for mandatory fine when not imposed)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La. 1988) (circumstantial evidence; all facts must meet Jackson standard)
- State v. Wright, 445 So.2d 1198 (La. 1984) (circumstantial evidence guideline for appellate review)
- State v. Anthony, 776 So.2d 376 (La. 2000) (voir dire rehabilitation and impartial juror consideration)