90 So. 3d 1
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Escobar-Rivera appeals three consecutive life sentences for three counts of second-degree murder arising from the Gomez Bar shootings.
- Defendant moved to suppress his custodial statement, challenging Miranda waiver and translation; all motions were denied.
- Escobar was tried by a twelve-person jury and convicted on all counts; sentences imposed consecutively without probation or parole.
- The offense involved multiple participants during an armed robbery at Gomez Bar, resulting in several fatalities and injuries.
- Police later arrested Escobar in Texas; he gave a custodial statement after Spanish-language Miranda advisements.
- The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, addressing assignments of error including suppression, unanimity, and consecutiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Escobar's statement knowingly and voluntarily given? | Escobar argues waiver was not knowing due to English form and translator issue. | Escobar contends the translation and lack of certified translator invalidated waiver. | Statement found knowingly and voluntarily given; waiver valid. |
| Did the trial court err by not requiring a unanimous jury verdict? | Escobar asserts lack of unanimity on verdict for multiple counts. | State argues no contemporaneous objection; record shows trial judge properly instructed. | No preservation of error; issue not reviewed on appeal. |
| Are the three life sentences improper due to consecutiveness? | Escobar contends three consecutive life sentences are excessive for a non-shooting defendant who aided the offense. | State asserts discretion in sentencing; consecutive nature not properly preserved for review absent specific objection. | Consecutive sentences affirmed; issue not reviewable on appeal for lack of specific objection. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Arias-Chavarria, 49 So.3d 426 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (burden on State to prove admissibility of confession; Miranda rights effective)
- State v. Rose, 924 So.2d 1107 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2006) (confession admissibility requires voluntariness and knowing waiver)
- State v. Terrick, 857 So.2d 1153 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2003) (trial court credibility review standard for voluntariness)
- State v. Jacobs, 67 So.3d 535 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (consecutive-sentencing review limits when not specifically objected)
- State v. Williams, 54 So.3d 98 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (consecutive sentencing review limitations on appeal)
- State v. Davenport, 2 So.3d 445 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2008) (art. 930.8 notice requirements and post-conviction guidance)
- State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.1975) (errors patent review framework)
- State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1990) (errors patent procedures and related considerations)