129 So. 3d 49
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Willis J. Mouton was charged by bill of information with simple burglary of an automobile and public intimidation.
- He pleaded not guilty and waived his right to trial by jury; the matter proceeded to a bench trial where he was found guilty on both counts.
- Sentences were twelve years for simple burglary and five years at hard labor for public intimidation, to be served concurrently.
- Defendant filed a direct appeal challenging sufficiency of the evidence and the sentences as excessive.
- The court identified errors patent: (a) indeterminate simple burglary sentence due to lack of labor designation, (b) improper advisement of the prescriptive period under Article 930.8.
- The court remanded for resentencing on simple burglary with explicit designation of hard labor and ordered Article 930.8 notice to be provided at resentencing; public intimidation was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Mouton | Mouton | Convictions supported; rational jurors could find entry and intent beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Excessiveness of sentence | Mouton | Mouton | Not excessive within discretion; however, sentence review is limited when no objection at sentencing. |
| Error patent—indeterminate simple burglary sentence | Mouton | Mouton | Sentence for simple burglary vacated; remanded with instruction to specify hard labor or not. |
| Error patent—Art. 930.8 notice | Mouton | Mouton | Trial court must inform defendant of Article 930.8 at resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bryant, 101 So.3d 429 (La. 2012) (entry may be inferred from circumstantial evidence when supported by the record)
- State v. Wommack, 770 So.2d 365 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2000) (transcript controls when minutes and transcript conflict)
- State v. Matthew, 983 So.2d 994 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2008) (remand when sentencing documents lack labor designation)
- State v. Mead, 823 So.2d 1045 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2002) (public intimidation with pre-arrest threats can sustain intent to influence conduct)
- State v. Stamps, 960 So.2d 237 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2007) (public intimidation lacks arrest element; threats to influence duties may be pre- or post-arrest)