63 So. 3d 330
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jones was adjudicated a fourth felony offender and sentenced to 30 years at hard labor with time served.
- Predicate offenses establishing habitual status: 1997 attempted simple burglary (97-743); 1998 unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (98-490); 2005 possession of cocaine (03-1948); 2009 unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (08-776).
- Officer Freyou linked Jones to the predicates, including paraphrased biographical data and signatures tying him to the prior guilty pleas.
- The State offered exhibits for the four predicate offenses; defense did not object to the documents themselves but challenged the adequacy of the predicate proof.
- The trial court found Jones was a fourth felony offender and sentenced him within the applicable statutory range: 20 years to life with a 30-year determinate term.
- Appellate review followed via an out-of-time appeal asserting errors patent, insufficiency of predicate proof, excessiveness of the sentence, and admission of other-crimes evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved the predicate conviction for docket 98-490 | Jones argues the State failed to prove the 98-490 conviction. | Jones contends the 98-490 sentence/conviction was not properly proven. | Sufficiency of evidence preserved by waiver rule; evidence showed Jones was sentenced in 98-490; not reversible. |
| Whether the 30-year sentence for a fourth offense is excessive | State asserts no error; sentence within statutory range. | Jones claims the sentence is excessive given the non-violent offenses. | Not excessive; within range and tailored to deterrence, with Dorthey guidance limiting downward departures. |
| Whether admission of dissimilar prior-crimes evidence violated 404(B) | Proffered as knowledge/intent evidence; admissible under 404(B). | No contemporaneous objection to 404(B) evidence; prejudicial and unduly similar. | No error; absence of contemporaneous objection precludes review. |
| Preservation of objections to habitual offender proof | Waiver under La.R.S. 15:529.1(D)(l)(b) due to lack of written objections. | Defendant preserved some objections but failed to raise others with particularity. | Waiver applies; failure to lodge written objections bars appellate challenge to predicate convictions. |
| Error patent and other procedural issues | No error patent found on record. | No errors patent. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kittlin, 695 So.2d 1137 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1997) (preservation via oral objections insufficient without written objections under 15:529.1(D)(l)(b))
- State v. Nelson, 977 So.2d 1061 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2008) (failure to object to habitual-offender evidence precludes review)
- State v. Braziel, 968 So.2d 853 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2007) (no written objection; oral objection required at hearing to preserve issue)
- State v. Briscoe, 779 So.2d 30 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2001) (oral objections may preserve 15:529.1(D)(l)(b) issues; but specifics required)
- State v. Mays, 929 So.2d 1231 (La. 2006) (R.S. 15:529.1(F) allows proof of prior convictions by any competent evidence; no strict evidence type required)