State v. Loper, 48 So. 3d 1263

Defendant Arria S. Loper, a felon, was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under LSA-R.S. 14:95.1 and found guilty after a jury trial.
Detective McMorris received confidential information and, with Deputy Landry, approached Loper; a pat-down revealed a .38 Special revolver with four live rounds in his right front pocket.
Loper completed prior felony convictions and parole; the State sought to prove elements of possession by a felon with a firearm and the ten-year cleansing period (pre-amendment statute interpretation).
Detectives acknowledged they did not testify to firing the gun or its operational status; the trial record showed the gun was physically recovered and introduced at trial.
On appeal, Loper argues insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and two pro se challenges including an excessive sentence and a sentencing error.
The First Circuit affirms the conviction and sentence but identifies a sentencing error for failing to impose the mandatory fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Loper contends the State failed to prove the gun was capable or used as a weapon.	Loper argues the firearm’s operability and use as a weapon were not established.	Evidence supports guilt; firearm presence by a felon proven despite operability uncertainty.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Ineffective assistance due to conflict of interest and inadequate representation.	Counsel failed to protect interests; performance deficient and prejudicial.	Claim not reviewable on direct appeal; requires postconviction evidentiary hearing.
Excessive sentence	Sentence is excessive.	Same challenge to sentence length.	Procedurally barred from review for failure to move to reconsider; merit not addressed.
Sentencing error – mandatory fine	Mandatory fine was not imposed as required by law.	Fine requirement not properly set by court.	Sentence illegally lenient due to missing mandatory fine; no correction on appeal per Price.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Mose, 412 So.2d 584 (La. 1982) (elements of possession by a felon)
State v. Jenkins, 540 So.2d 1037 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1989) (operability of firearm not required)
State v. Rogers, 494 So.2d 1251 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1986) (firearm definition not dependent on operability)
United States v. Perez, 897 F.2d 751 (5th Cir. 1990) (inoperable firearm still a firearm)
State v. Calloway, 1 So.3d 417 (La. 2009) (circuit appellate guidance on sufficiency)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (test for ineffective assistance)
State v. Morgan, 472 So.2d 934 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1985) (review of counsel performance involves reasonableness)
State v. Price, 952 So.2d 112 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2006) (sentencing error not corrected on appeal)