219 So. 3d 511
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Annternette Lattin was charged with home invasion but convicted by a jury of the responsive verdict, unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling (La. R.S. 14:62.3).
- Incident: on Nov. 26, 2014 Lattin and others went to James Leachman’s apartment to get his child Frank; an altercation occurred on the front porch and inside the apartment during which Lattin allegedly entered forcibly and a physical struggle ensued.
- Witnesses (Leachman and Miriam Ochoa) testified Lattin, an accomplice and her sister forced the door, entered without consent, and engaged in physical violence; photographs and police testimony corroborated an observable struggle and injuries.
- Lattin’s account: she claimed a prior informal custody arrangement, went to retrieve Frank with permission to see him, was pulled into the apartment during a tug-of-war, and did not intend to enter unlawfully or use force.
- Jury found the State’s witnesses credible and convicted; trial court imposed a one-year hard labor sentence but used "suspended" and "deferred" interchangeably, placed Lattin on one year supervised probation, and ordered payment of court costs or 30 days jail in lieu.
- On appeal the court affirmed the conviction for unauthorized entry but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because (1) the court created an indeterminate sentence by conflating deferment and suspension under Art. 893, and (2) it improperly ordered default jail time for court costs while the defendant was represented by the indigent defender’s office.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Lattin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling | Testimony of Leachman and Ochoa showed intentional, forcible entry without consent | Lattin argued she was pulled into the apartment during a struggle and did not enter intentionally or without authorization | Conviction affirmed: viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, testimony sufficed to prove unauthorized entry beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether general intent element was met | Circumstances indicated the defendant must have adverted to the likely consequences of forcible entry | Lattin contested the credibility of witnesses and claimed no intent to unlawfully enter | Held: jury credibility determination resolved against Lattin; general intent found |
| Sentence clarity (defer vs suspend under Art. 893) | N/A (issue arose from trial court’s language) | N/A | Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing because the court used "suspended" and "deferred" interchangeably, producing an indeterminate sentence |
| Imposition of default jail time for court costs | Court ordered costs or 30 days jail | Lattin (indigent) argued imprisonment in lieu of payment is improper when represented by indigent defender | Held: ordering jail in default of court costs was error; instruction to delete default jail time from sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- State v. Tate, 851 So.2d 921 (La. 2003) (application of Jackson standard in Louisiana)
- State v. Pigford, 922 So.2d 517 (La. 2006) (appellate court may not substitute its view for the factfinder)
- State v. Sutton, 436 So.2d 471 (La. 1983) (resolving direct evidence conflicts for sufficiency review)
- State v. Ortiz, 701 So.2d 922 (La. 1997) (unauthorized entry defined as entry without consent of one with authority)