202 So. 3d 518
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Oct. 13, 2014: Two males (defendant Brian Rodas and juvenile L.L.) entered elderly victim Karlene Dealune’s home; L.L. threatened her with a gun while Rodas carried out property and left with stolen items and cards.
- The stolen debit/credit cards were used at multiple ATMs and two GameStop stores; surveillance/photos linked Rodas to purchases and GameStop employees and the victim identified Rodas at trial.
- L.L. testified he and Rodas committed the armed robbery, identified firearms and a GameStop photo; guns and a PS4 with matching receipt/serial were recovered at Rodas’s residence.
- Rodas admitted involvement in the post-robbery purchases and that property/guns were found at his home, but claimed he thought they were going to buy marijuana and denied knowledge of a planned robbery.
- Jury convicted Rodas of armed robbery (La. R.S. 14:64), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (La. R.S. 14:95.1), and attempted simple escape; sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 97½ years.
- On appeal Rodas argued (1) mistrial was required for prosecutor’s insinuations of other crimes, (2) sentence was constitutionally excessive and vindictive for going to trial, and (3) an error patent existed in the commitment regarding references to probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rodas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s cross-examination required a mandatory mistrial under La. C.Cr.P. art. 770(2) for referring to other crimes | Remarks did not unmistakably point to another crime; any question withdrawn and jury admonished | Remarks implicitly suggested Rodas committed other robberies and thus mandated mistrial; admonition insufficient | No mistrial. Remarks did not unmistakably refer to another crime; even if error, it was harmless given overwhelming evidence |
| Whether the 97½-year aggregate sentence was unconstitutionally excessive | Sentences within statutory ranges, judge considered La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 factors and victim impact; prior felony and offense severity support sentences | Rodas contends plea offer (25 years) shows 97½ years is excessive and punishes him for rejecting plea and going to trial | Sentences not excessive. Trial court did not abuse discretion; defendant failed to preserve some specific sentencing arguments for review |
| Whether sentences were imposed vindictively (punishment for exercising right to trial) | Judge warned of higher exposure and used sentencing factors; greater penalty risk is attendant to rejecting pleas | Claim that heavier post-trial sentence punished exercise of right to trial | Claim lacks merit; no evidence of vindictiveness and defendant accepted plea conditions when informed |
| Whether commitment contains an error patent requiring correction | Commitment incorrectly references probation conditions inconsistent with transcript; transcript governs | Commitment improperly states probation conditions though none were imposed | Remanded to correct commitment: remove probation references and transmit corrected commitment to custody and DOC legal dept. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 811 So.2d 1026 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2002) (other-crimes evidence generally inadmissible due to prejudice)
- State v. Clark, 924 So.2d 282 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2006) (mandatory mistrial requires remark to unmistakably point to another crime)
- State v. Lagarde, 960 So.2d 1105 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2007) (mistrial is drastic remedy; reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Lynch, 441 So.2d 732 (La. 1983) (transcript controls over inconsistent commitment entries)
- State v. Celestine, 92 So.3d 335 (La. 2012) (armed robbery creates great risk of emotional and physical harm)
- State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975) (mandate to review record for errors patent)