115 So. 3d 86
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Lloyd Richard was convicted of attempted second degree murder and aggravated burglary for the January 26, 2008 home invasion of Alonda Dennis.
- Dennis awoke to an armed, masked intruder attempting to stab her; she fought back and observed the assailant’s face, later identifying Richard at trial.
- Police found Richard nearby; evidence included a skull cap, gloves, a knife, and a hairdryer cord; DNA analysis linked the skull cap to Richard and the gloves/knife to multiple contributors including the victim.
- Richard argued the convictions violated double jeopardy because the same evidence supported both offenses.
- At sentencing, the court imposed 50 years for attempted second degree murder and 30 years for aggravated burglary, consecutive and without parole or suspension.
- The trial court later amended the aggravated burglary sentence to remove parole restrictions, prompting appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does double jeopardy bar the two convictions? | Richard contends same evidence supports both offenses. | Richard argues evidence used for murder also proves burglary. | Not barred; offenses distinct with separate elements and intent. |
| Whether the aggravated burglary conviction rests on a valid underlying felonious intent when the only completed crime alleged was attempted murder. | State contends burglary proved by intent to commit a felony of theft or other felony inside the home. | Richard argues there was no theft and the burglary predicate is not proven independently of murder. | Valid; specific intent to commit a felony or theft may be inferred from circumstances, and the burglary element is satisfied with unauthorized entry and felonious intent. |
| Did the trial court err by imposing parole-ineligible terms on the aggravated burglary sentence? | State argues sentence compliance with 14:60 permits hard labor without parole. | Sentence unlawfully restricted parole benefits. | Amended to delete restrictions on benefits; correct commitment required. |
| Are the consecutive sentences properly reviewable for excessiveness? | Appeal challenges the consecutive nature as excessive/unsupported by record. | No objection to consecutiveness; thus no review for excessiveness on appeal. | Consecutive-sentence issue not reviewable on bare appeal; sentences affirmed within statutory limits. |
| Are the overall sentences constitutionally excessive under the circumstances? | Potential argument that sentences are excessive given the facts. | Argues excessive as within discretion and statutory limits. | Court found sentences within limits and supported by the nature of the crime and defendant’s history. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Garcia, 66 So.3d 24 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2011) (two tests for double jeopardy: Blockburger and same-evidence)
- State v. Solomon, 379 So.2d 1078 (La. 1980) (burglary and theft not same offense; different elements/inference possible)
- State v. Ricks, 428 So.2d 794 (La. 1983) (intent to commit a felony may be inferred from circumstances)
- State v. Archield, 34 So.3d 434 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2010) (distinct offenses may be proven by separate evidence without double jeopardy)
- State v. Lipton, 857 So.2d 1162 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2003) (error patent discussion on sentencing and commitments)