66 So. 3d 619
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Draymond Paul Compton was tried on four battery counts and one attempted disarming count from a December 30, 2006 incident.
- A jury convicted him of two counts of battery of a police officer requiring medical attention (officers Airhart and White) and acquitted on the remaining charges.
- Each battery conviction carried two years at hard labor without parole, probation, or suspension, with sentences running consecutively and a $1,000 fine.
- The trial court later imposed and the appellate court reviewed the sentence provisions denying parole, probation, or suspension; amendments were necessary because the statute in effect in 2006 did not require such denial.
- The court amended the sentences to delete the parole/probation/suspension denial, directing the trial court to note the amendments in the minutes.
- Issues on appeal included sufficiency of the evidence, mistrial regarding an alternate juror, and the legality/excessiveness of the sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence proves felony-grade battery of an officer | Compton argues insufficiency to prove all elements | Compton contends self-defense/justification or lack of intent | Sufficiency affirmed; jury could find elements beyond reasonable doubt |
| Whether the alternate juror’s presence during deliberations warrants mistrial | State contends no prejudice after juror questions | Defense asserts prejudice from alternate juror in deliberations | Harmless error; no reversible prejudice due to juror assurances and post-trial questioning |
| Whether the term medical attention requires modification to reflect law at the time | State argues the term is ambiguous and was properly applied | Defense urges a stricter interpretation requiring medical necessity | Amendment required; statute interpreted to require medical attention under modern standard; minutes amended |
| Whether the sentences are legal or excessive | State argues within broad sentencing discretion | Argues excessiveness and lack of Art. 894.1 articulation | Convictions affirmed; sentences amended to remove parole/probation/suspension denial; no abuse of discretion in consecutive terms |
| Whether the offenses arose from same act/transaction justifying concurrent sentencing | State asserts consecutive sentences justified by dangerousness and plea benefits | Argues concurrent sentences should have been imposed | Consecutive sentences affirmed; court found factors warranted continuation given harm and defendant’s history |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Levy, 12 So.3d 1135 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2009) (amendment action regarding parole eligibility after 2007 statute change)
- State v. Dupree, 957 So.2d 966 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2007) (guidance on correcting sentencing provisions)
- State v. Kennerson, 695 So.2d 1367 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1997) (Jackson sufficiency standard applied; credibility of witnesses)
- State v. Clark, 52 So.3d 304 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2010) (sufficiency and justification analysis in battery cases)
- State v. Anderson, 2 So.3d 622 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2009) (alternate juror deliberations prejudice analysis)
- State v. Barber, 793 So.2d 251 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2001) (presumption of prejudice from alternate juror participation; remedy procedures)
- State v. Robinson, 981 So.2d 867 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2008) (consecutive sentencing articulation standards)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (juror prejudice standard in extraneous influence cases)