190 So. 3d 482
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Calvin Hayes pled guilty (March 19, 2013) to theft (count 1), unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (counts 2 and 4), and carjacking (count 3); plea form and colloquy advised him of sentencing ranges and agreed sentences.
- Trial court initially imposed concurrent ten-year sentences on counts 1, 2, and 4, and a twenty-year sentence on count 3; the State filed a habitual-offender bill and the court enhanced count 3 to a 20-year habitual sentence without benefits to run concurrently.
- On direct appeal this Court affirmed convictions but found the ten-year sentences on counts 1, 2, and 4 indeterminate because the original sentence did not specify hard labor, vacated those sentences, and remanded for resentencing.
- On remand the trial court resentenced counts 1, 2, and 4 to concurrent ten years at hard labor and again (improperly, per prior remand scope) reimposed the enhanced 20-year habitual sentence on count 3; defendant filed a pro se second appeal.
- Defendant challenged his sentences as excessive and argued the trial court failed to articulate consideration under La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 and La. R.S. 15:529.1; he also raised ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object or move for reconsideration.
- The appellate court held defendant is barred from appellate review of sentences imposed in conformity with a plea agreement, affirmed the sentences, but remanded for correction of the Uniform Commitment Order to reflect the original sentencing date(s).
Issues
| Issue | Hayes' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hayes' sentences are excessive | Sentences are excessive; trial court failed to state reasons under art. 894.1 and 15:529.1; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Defendant did not preserve excessiveness claim; sentences were imposed in conformity with plea agreement so appeal barred under art. 881.2(A)(2); ineffective-assistance claim moot | The court held Hayes is precluded from appellate review of agreed-upon sentences under La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.2(A)(2); counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to an agreed sentence |
| Whether trial court failed to comply with sentencing articulation requirements | Court did not state factual basis and considerations on the record, per Hayes | Even absent fuller articulation, the agreed sentences were permitted by statute and covered by the plea colloquy | The court did not reopen review because of plea-agreement bar; no relief granted |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel claim survives despite lack of objection | Failure to object or move to reconsider should not preclude appellate review; alternatively, counsel was ineffective | Because sentence review is barred by art. 881.2(A)(2), the ineffective-assistance claim is moot; additionally, Hayes cannot show prejudice | Court found counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to agreed sentences (no preserved review) |
| Whether record contains errors patent requiring correction | Not raised as a separate claim by Hayes | Court must review for errors patent and correct ministerial record errors | Court ordered remand to correct the Uniform Commitment Order to reflect original sentencing dates and transmit corrected document to institution/Dept. of Corrections |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Counterman, 475 So.2d 336 (La. 1985) (authority on out-of-time appeals and plea colloquy relevance)
- State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975) (errors-patent review mandate)
- State ex rel. Roland v. State, 937 So.2d 846 (La. 2006) (procedures for correcting commitments and transmitting corrected orders)
- State v. Hayes, 173 So.3d 1222 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (prior appellate decision vacating indeterminate sentences and remanding for resentencing)
- State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1990) (errors-patent review authority)