157 So. 3d 21
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Joseph Chehardy shot his wife during a domestic disturbance and then drove his truck toward two deputies, forcing them to jump aside; the wife died from gunshot wounds.
- Indictment charged one count of second degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder; trial court later convicted on one second degree murder count and two aggravated battery counts, with life and ten-year terms.
- Convictions include a life sentence for second degree murder and consecutive ten-year terms for aggravated battery, but the aggravated battery sentences were improper as indeterminate.
- The appellate court found the aggravated battery sentences indeterminate due to lack of hard labor designation and misstatement of the sentence duration, and directed resentencing with clear hard labor specification.
- The court also addressed patent errors regarding post-conviction relief timing and relevant issues raised by the defense, ultimately affirming the murder conviction and vacating/remanding aggravated battery sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated battery | Chehardy argues no contact occurred; no physical injury shown | State failed to prove element of physical contact | Evidence supports aggravated battery as a responsive verdict to attempted murder; sufficiency affirmed |
| Indeterminate aggravated battery sentences | State argues sentences were valid | Sentences are indeterminate due to unclear hard labor status | Vacate aggravated battery sentences; remand for resentencing with explicit hard labor designation |
| Post-conviction relief notice error | Court misinformed defendant about time for post-conviction relief | Correct information required under Article 930.8 | Direct trial court to inform defendant correctly about Article 930.8 at resentencing |
| Pro se and ineffective assistance challenges | Ineffective assistance, voir dire, grand jury notice, and other pro se claims | Claims meritless or adequately addressed by record | No reversible error found; assignments are meritless or moot compared to main issues |
| Voir dire and Batson-type gender discrimination claims | Prosecution used peremptory challenges to stack jury with women | Record insufficient to establish Batson violation due to lack of transcript objections | Preserved lack of objection; cannot now challenge without contemporaneous objection; no Batson violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Alsay, 81 So.3d 145 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (sufficiency of aggravated battery when no direct contact evidence exists)
- State v. Jones, 855 So.2d 408 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2003) (airing specific intent may be inferred from circumstances)
- State ex rel. Elaire v. Blackburn, 424 So.2d 246 (La.1982) (permissible compromise verdicts when responsive verdicts exist)
- State v. Matthew, 983 So.2d 994 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2008) (vacate indeterminate sentences and remand for proper sentencing)
- State v. Wommack, 770 So.2d 365 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2000) (transcript controls when minutes conflict with sentencing terms)
- State v. Parker, 416 So.2d 545 (La.1982) (mandatory life sentence not subject to downward departure for excessiveness)
- State v. Gill, 931 So.2d 409 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2006) (discussion of constitutional proportionality standards in mandatory sentences)