State v. Montero, 263 So. 3d 899

Defendant Carlos Alberto Montero, Sr. was indicted on six counts: failure to maintain sex offender registration; two counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile under 13; two counts of aggravated rape; and one count of sexual battery of a juvenile under 13. He pleaded not guilty and was convicted on all counts by a jury.
Sentences: concurrent terms including life without parole for the two aggravated rape convictions and various hard labor terms for the remaining counts. Appeal followed.
The State sought and obtained court permission to introduce evidence of defendant’s 2002 conviction for carnal knowledge of a juvenile under La. C.E. art. 412.2 (lustful disposition). The jury was given a limiting instruction.
Victims included three of the household children (K.L., born 10/11/1999; V.L., born 11/30/2000; T.S., older), who testified to repeated sexual abuse over several years; a niece (K.H.) testified to abuse in the 1980s. Forensic interviews and a child abuse pediatrician’s testimony corroborated delayed disclosure is common.
Sergeant testimony and a certified conviction record established defendant’s prior 2002 conviction and his failure to update his sex offender registration/address.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior 2002 conviction under La. C.E. art. 412.2 (lustful disposition)	Prior conviction is relevant to prove lustful disposition and intent in sexual-offense charges and is necessary to prove the registration count.	Prior crime was consensual intercourse with a 13-year-old and therefore irrelevant; admission was prejudicial.	Trial court did not abuse discretion: prior conviction admissible under Art. 412.2; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; limiting instruction given.
Failure to re-arraign after indictment amendment	N/A (State amended indictment to add prior conviction and amend dates)	Defendant asserts potential defect from not being re-arraigned after amendments.	No reversible error: re-arraignment only required if substance of charge changed; defendant proceeded to trial without objection, so any issue waived.
Mandatory fine for failure to register (count one)	State: fine statutory; should be imposed.	Defense: defendant indigent.	Court notes omission in transcript but declines to remand to impose fine due to defendant’s indigency.
Errors in sentencing paperwork (UCO and minute entry inconsistent with transcript; offense dates on UCO)	N/A	N/A	Convictions affirmed but remanded for ministerial corrections: align minute entry and UCO with transcript and correct offense date range on UCO.

State v. Olivieri, 860 So.2d 207 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2003) (interpreting La. C.E. art. 412.2 and admissibility of lustful-disposition evidence)
State v. Cosey, 779 So.2d 675 (La. 2000) (standard of review for other-crimes evidence and limiting consideration)
State v. J.M., 189 So.3d 1079 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2015) (trial court’s discretion in admitting 412.2 evidence and use of limiting instruction)
State v. Dauzart, 844 So.2d 159 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2003) (other-crimes evidence admissibility principles)
State v. Greenup, 123 So.3d 768 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (discussion of independent relevance beyond character evidence)
State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975) (errors-patent review authority)
State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1990) (errors-patent review authority)