167 So. 3d 801
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Denis Flores was charged (Aug 2013) and convicted by a 12-person jury of failing to register as a sex offender under La. R.S. 15:542 after evidence showed he had prior conviction for indecent behavior with a juvenile and had not maintained registration.
- Multiple interactions with police in May–June 2013 included Flores providing false names; fingerprinting later identified him as Denis Flores and linked him to prior records.
- The State produced a 2009 Sex Offender Contract, a May 2013 Acknowledgement of Registration, and fingerprint comparisons showing identity. Flores did not present witnesses at trial.
- After conviction, the State filed a multiple offender bill; at a March 2014 hearing the trial court adjudicated Flores a third felony offender and resentenced him to eight years at hard labor (no parole/probation/suspension).
- Flores appealed raising sufficiency of evidence, prosecutor rebuttal remarks, constitutionality of non-unanimous verdicts, adequacy of multiple-offender proof (Boykin waivers/Spanish-language issue), and excessiveness of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Flores's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove failure to register | Evidence (2009 contract, May 2013 acknowledgement, fingerprints tying aliases to Flores) shows he was notified and never completed registration | State failed to prove Flores (not alias) executed the May 27, 2013 acknowledgement and was advised during charged period | Conviction affirmed; evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution |
| Prosecutor’s rebuttal calling Flores’s English-ability claim a “smokescreen” | Comment was reasonable rebuttal to defense argument and an opinion on the evidence | Remark was improper, personal attack and prejudicial | Overruled; remark was permissible rebuttal/opinion and did not prejudice jury |
| Constitutionality of La.C.Cr.P. art. 782 (non-unanimous 11–1 verdict) | Non-unanimous 12-person juries are constitutional under controlling precedent | Article 782 is unconstitutional; verdict should be unanimous | Claim foreclosed by U.S. and La. Supreme Court precedent; 11–1 verdict upheld |
| Multiple offender adjudication – proof of prior pleas and waiver understanding | Introduced certified conviction packets, waiver forms signed by counsel, and fingerprint matches tying Flores to prior convictions | Boykin transcripts not introduced; waivers in English and Flores (Spanish speaker) did not understand consequences | State met initial burden; Flores’s self-serving testimony insufficient to shift burden; adjudication as third felony offender affirmed |
| Excessive sentence (8 years H.L., enhanced) | Sentence within statutory enhanced range and comparable to other cases; defendant has relevant priors | Sentence is excessive | Affirmed; within legal range and not grossly disproportionate |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (nonunanimous jury verdicts permissible under Sixth Amendment)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (requirement that guilty pleas be voluntary with waiver of constitutional rights)
- State v. Shelton, 621 So.2d 769 (La. 1993) (burden-shifting rules for proving prior guilty pleas in multiple offender proceedings)
- State ex rel. Olivieri v. State, 779 So.2d 735 (La. 2001) (costs of sex-offender registration are part of regulatory scheme; not an undue constitutional bar)