State v. Lampkin, 119 So. 3d 158

Lampkin was convicted of aggravated rape and indecent behavior with juveniles and sentenced to life in prison without parole plus a concurrent 25-year term with restrictions on parole for the indecent behavior conviction.
Appeal filed after sentencing; trial court had granted the motion for appeal, jurisdictional issues arose under La.C.Cr.P. art. 916.
The record includes extensive trial testimony, victim R.D.’s CAC interview, medical findings of acute trauma, and a pretrial lineup identifying Lampkin as the perpetrator.
Defense challenged sufficiency of the evidence, lack of semen, lack of in-court identification, and reliability of the photographic lineup.
The State introduced a prior conviction for carnal knowledge of a juvenile to show a pattern; defendant’s current convictions are urged to be supported by the victim’s testimony and corroborative medical evidence.
The court remanded for written sex offender notification under La.R.S. 15:543.1.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the convictions?	Lampkin argues no witnesses, no semen, no in-court identification, lineup unreliable.	State failed to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt.	Yes; rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether the appeal should be dismissed as premature due to Article 916 jurisdictional limits?	State contends appeal timing is proper under law.	Appeal premature because sentence imposed after motion for appeal without jurisdiction.	Not dismissed; akin to Brooks, appeal preserved.
Was the absence of voir dire and opening statements transcripts reversible error?	Incomplete record prejudices appellate review.	Voir dire and opening statements omissions prejudicial.	Without merit; record showed no prejudice and opening statements not objected to.
Did the trial court properly instruct on jurors' note-taking and preserve the issue?	Incorrect note-taking instruction affected defendant’s rights.	Instruction misstated law on juror note-taking.	Correct instruction; issue not preserved due to lack of contemporaneous objection.
Should there be remand for written sex offender notification?	No need for further notice.	Notification required by statute.	Remand to provide appropriate written notification.

State v. Sims, 33 So.3d 340 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2010) (trial court divested of jurisdiction after grant of appeal)
State v. Brooks, 633 So.2d 816 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1994) (appeal not dismissed when sentence issued after motion for appeal)
State v. Chapman, 471 So.2d 716 (La. 1985) (appeal from final conviction requires sentence)
State v. London, 316 So.2d 743 (La. 1975) (premature appeals context in criminal cases)
State v. Neely, 3 So.3d 532 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2008) (prejudice required for voir dire transcript omissions)
State v. Goodbier, 367 So.2d 356 (La. 1979) (record incompleteness and prejudice standard)
State v. Duronslet, 87 So.3d 112 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2012) (credibility and weighing eyewitness testimony on appeal)
State v. Gaddis, 973 So.2d 21 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2007) (identification and credibility considerations)
State v. Pierce, 80 So.3d 1267 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2011) (sex offender notification prerequisites)
State v. Cheatteam, 986 So.2d 738 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2008) (transcript completeness and impact on appeal)