119 So. 3d 648
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Consolidated appeal from convictions after a jury trial and a writ/application challenging habitual offender status.
- Defendant E.J.M., III was charged with three sexual offenses involving two victims, K.P. and N.M., with N.M. being his daughter.
- Trial court convicted: count 1 as attempted indecent behavior with a juvenile; counts 2 and 3 as molestation of a juvenile and aggravated incest, respectively.
- Habitual offender proceedings initially found him to be a second-felony offender; the court later resentenced under the habitual offender statute.
- Writ filed by State challenged the second-vs-third felony offender designation; Court consolidated writ and appeal and remanded for sex-offender notification purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for all convictions | E.J.M. contends insufficient evidence supports the three guilty verdicts. | K.P., N.M., and TM were uncorroborated and motivated to testify against him. | Sufficiency found; rational juror could credit witnesses and convict. |
| Improper responsive verdicts on Count 1 | State argues verdicts were proper responsive alternatives to aggravated rape. | Exhibited four improper responsive verdicts not supported by the 1990 statute. | Not error patent; defenses waived contemporaneous objection; verdicts not reversible error. |
| Sex offender registration notice | State contends mandatory registration notices were provided. | Defense contends failure to provide notice violated requirements. | Remand required to provide proper notice and documentary proof of notice. |
| Multiple bill/admit-deny procedure | State admissibly established habitual status with evidence at hearings. | Right to admit/deny not properly addressed due to procedural gaps. | Harmless error; defendant proceeded to hearing without objection. |
| Habitual offender designation | State argues defendant was a third felony offender based on Oregon convictions. | Disputed adequacy of Oregon plea records and advisements; may not prove proper Boykin waivers. | State failed to prove third-felony status; writ denied; conviction(s) affirmed; remand for notice requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Neal, 796 So.2d 649 (La. 2001) (sufficiency review under Jackson v. Virginia)
- State v. Turner, 904 So.2d 816 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2005) (contemporaneous objection required for patent errors)
- State v. Merril, 105 So.3d 264 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2012) (sufficiency of circumstantial evidence framework)
- State v. Harris, 846 So.2d 709 (La. 2003) (sufficiency; standard of review for credibility)
- State v. Pertuit, 734 So.2d 144 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1999) (voluntariness of guilty pleas; waiver of rights form)
- State v. Dejean, 694 So.2d 284 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1995) (guilty plea validity; need for transcript/minutes)
- State v. Perkins, 751 So.2d 403 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2000) (voluntariness of guilty plea; Shelton framework)
- State v. Shelton, 621 So.2d 769 (La. 1993) (framework for evaluating informed voluntariness in pleas)
- State v. Payton, 894 So.2d 362 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2005) (Boykin rights waiver and voluntariness in plea records)
- State v. Morgan, 948 So.2d 199 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2006) (sex offender notification remand considerations)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (fundamental Boykin rights in guilty pleas)