State v. Bruce
54 So. 3d 87
| La. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Defendant Bruce was convicted of armed robbery after a 2009 jury trial in Jefferson Parish.
- The victim identified Bruce as the robber, testifying he used a knife and stole a gold chain.
- A photographic lineup identified Bruce the day of the arrest; no weapon was produced at trial.
- Bruce received an original 75-year sentence; a later 100-year sentence was imposed after a successful 15:529.1 multiplicity proceeding.
- At the multiple-offender hearing, fingerprints and prior conviction documents established Bruce as the same person who committed the prior felony.
- The court remanded to correct the commitment to reflect no extra notice given about post-conviction relief prescriptive periods.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict armed robbery | Bruce suggests lack of weapon, eyewitness, or corroboration invalidates conviction. | No weapon shown, no direct evidence of force, and no credible linkage to the chain. | Evidence sufficient; single uncontradicted eyewitness identification supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Validity of the multiple-offender determination | State proved the prior felony and Bruce was represented when plea was taken; fingerprints matched. | Counsel allegedly failed to safeguard his rights and may have impeded defense at the multiple-offender hearing. | State met its burden; Bruce was properly adjudicated a second felony offender; no reversal for counsel's performance evidenced. |
| Constitutional excessiveness of the 100-year sentence | Sentence falls within statutory range for a second-offender armed robbery and is warranted by his history. | Sentence is excessive and shocking to conscience given lack of injury or threat. | Not excessive; within discretion for a habitual offender given extensive criminal history and severity of offense. |
| Prescriptive notice and record discrepancies following multiple offender ruling | Transcript reflects proper advisements; commitment misstates prescriptive notice. | Advisement may be incomplete and defense counsel failed to preserve some rights. | Transcript controls; remand to correct commitment; art. 930.8 advisements satisfied once; remand for consistency. |
| Adequacy of defense at multiple offender hearing | Evidence supports habitual designation; counsel did not render ineffective assistance. | Counsel abandoned defense and pressured waiver of rights at the hearing. | No clear ineffective assistance demonstrated; burden on State to prove predicate; record supports finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fuller, 980 So.2d 45 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2008) (one witness can prove identity for armed robbery conviction)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
- State v. Shelton, 621 So.2d 769 (La.1993) (burden of proof for multiple offender admissibility)
- State v. Grimes, 16 So.3d 426 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (initial burden to prove prior convictions and identity at multiple bill)
- State v. Jones, 778 So.2d 1131 (La.2001) (standard for reviewing sentencing discretion)