State v. Hart, 66 So. 3d 44

Hart was charged Sept. 8, 2008 with distribution of cocaine within 1000 feet of a play area; amended Feb. 4, 2009 to distribution under 40:967(A) and pled guilty to the amended charge; sentenced to 15 years with 2 years without parole, concurrent with other sentences.
State filed a habitual offender (second felony offender) bill; Hart stipulated to the predicate offenses; original sentence vacated and re-imposed 15 years at hard labor, concurrent with other sentences.
On June 15, 2010 Hart filed a pro se Motion to Vacate and Set Aside an Illegal Habitual Offender Sentence; district court denied.
Court granted limited writ August 30, 2010 to allow post-conviction relief and out-of-time appeal; Hart pursued an appeal.
On appeal, the issues centered on whether Hart was advised of the right to remain silent before admitting the 1997 predicate conviction, and whether the habitual offender procedures and waiver were proper; the matter was remanded for correction of the commitment concerning second felony offender status and concurrency provisions.
Court affirmed the habitual offender conviction and remanded for corrections to the commitment and minutes; the record otherwise found the proceedings fundamentally fair.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hart was properly advised of his right to remain silent before stipulating to being a second felony offender	Hart argues lack of silent-right advisement taints the habitual offender adjudication	State contends advisement occurred via waiver form and colloquy; any error harmless	Adequate advisement and waiver; no reversible error on this issue
Whether Hart validly waived his rights to a hearing and to remain silent before stipulating to the multiple offender status	Hart contends waiver was involuntary due to advisement deficiencies	Waiver evidenced by waiver form and transcript; defense counsel explained rights	Waiver valid; rights explained, form signed, and stipulation knowingly made
Whether the habitual offender proceedings were fundamentally fair and due process was satisfied	Hart asserts error in advisement and proceeding taints due process	Record shows fundamental fairness; alignment with precedent supports validity	Proceedings found fundamentally fair; no reversal necessary
Whether there are patent errors requiring correction on the commitment and minutes	Commitment did not reflect second felony offender status and concurrent sentence	Not contested beyond disclosure in transcript; remand for correction	Remand for correction of commitment and minutes; transcript controls concurrency finding

State v. Delmore, 996 So.2d 541 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2008) (advisement of rights in habitual offender context; intelligent waiver)
State v. Perrilloux, 802 So.2d 772 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2001) (intelligent waiver when rights explained prior to stipulation)
State v. Reichard, 880 So.2d 97 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2004) (reversible error if admission of status occurs without rights advisement)
State v. Williams, 924 So.2d 327 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2006) (error patent review; rights advisement and waiver form can cure deficiencies)
State v. Jones, 35 So.3d 1162 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (advisement before stipulation; whether waiver evidence supports validity)
State v. Hannon, 736 So.2d 323 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1999) (interpretation of ongoing dialogue indicating advisement of rights)
State v. Harris, 654 So.2d 680 (La. 1995) (due process assessment of habitual offender proceedings; fundamental fairness)
State v. Alvarez, 47 So.3d 1018 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (remedial corrections for multiple offender commitment entries)