173 So. 3d 1262
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Dale Brown was convicted by an 11–1 jury verdict of armed robbery and aggravated flight from an officer in Jefferson Parish.
- The armed robbery charge carried a possible 10–99 year hard labor sentence; Brown received 75 years for armed robbery and 2 years for aggravated flight, to be served consecutively.
- Brown challenged the verdict as non-unanimous under Louisiana law; the court noted 11–1 verdicts have been upheld in prior decisions.
- He argued the consecutive nature of sentences was excessive and not properly justified by the trial court.
- Brown alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to reconsider sentence, and raised pro se errors about closing argument and admissibility of prior convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of non-unanimous verdicts | Brown claims non-unanimous verdicts violate due process | State asserts Art. I, §17(A) and Art. 782 are constitutional | Non-unanimous verdicts constitutional; issue lacks merit |
| Excessiveness of consecutive sentences | Consecutive terms are excessive given Brown's role | Record supports the sentences and emphasizes deterrence | No constitutional excess; sentences affirmed |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Insufficient evidence to prove armed robbery; Brown was merely the driver | Driver can be a principal; evidence shows knowledge and participation | Sufficient evidence to convict as principal to armed robbery and for aggravated flight |
| Pro se closing-argument claim and limiting instructions | Prosecutor improperly vouched for witnesses; unfair closing | Any error harmless; no contemporaneous objection | Closing argument error harmless; no reversal |
| Ineffective assistance regarding motion to reconsider | Failure to file motion prejudiced appellate rights | Record shows no reasonable probability of different outcome | No ineffective assistance; trial counsel not shown prejudicial impact |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Edwards, 420 So.2d 663 (La. 1982) (non-unanimous verdicts permissible for non-capital cases)
- State v. Bertrand, 6 So.3d 738 (La. 2009) (upholds non-unanimous verdicts in certain contexts)
- State v. Raymond, 13 So.3d 577 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (discusses verdict unanimity issues in appeal)
- State v. Cornejo-Garcia, 90 So.3d 458 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2012) (art. 883/overlapping sentences; discretion to impose consecutive terms)
- State v. Stepp, 686 So.2d 76 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1996) (factors supporting substantial terms when driver is involved)
- State v. Falkins, 880 So.2d 903 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2004) (discusses maximum sentences in armed robbery cases)
- State v. Petty, 103 So.3d 616 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2012) (consecutive sentences and appellate review)