66 So. 3d 40
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Spikes was convicted of simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling and illegal possession of stolen things arising from a burglary of Guidry's home and possession of Guidry's casino chips.
- He pled guilty to both offenses after initially pleading not guilty.
- On Boykin, Spikes received 10 years on count one and 10 years on count two, to run concurrently.
- The State filed a habitual-offender/multiple-bill on count one; Spikes pled guilty to being a second felony offender.
- The trial court vacated the sentence on count two and resentenced Spikes under La. R.S. 15:529.1 to 10 years, concurrent with the other sentence.
- Spikes challenged the convictions and sentences as violating double jeopardy; the court addressed sentencing errors on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the two offenses violate double jeopardy? | Spikes asserts the offenses arise from the same conduct. | Spikes relies on Vincent and Bradley to argue impairment of double jeopardy. | Not the same offense; separate elements and conduct; convictions affirmed. |
| Whether sentencing errors require remand and correction of the multiple-offender sentence? | Spikes argues improper resentencing and misapplication of the multiple-bill. | Court should correct sentencing and reinstate appropriate counts. | Remanded to correct sentencing: reinstate count-two sentence, vacate and reimpose the multiple-offender sentence on count one; advise hard labor and habitual-offender terms on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vincent, 387 So. 2d 1097 (La. 1980) (distinct facts support separate offenses)
- State v. Robertson, 386 So.2d 906 (La. 1980) (same incident may involve multiple offenses with different conduct)
- In re Bradley, 1 So. 3d 459 (La. 2009) (double jeopardy analysis in possession vs armed robbery context)
- State v. Barton, 857 So.2d 1189 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2003) (articulates Blockburger distinct-factor test and double jeopardy framework)
- State v. Cotten, 438 So.2d 1156 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1983) (double jeopardy principles inLouisiana appellate context)
- State v. Steele, 387 So.2d 1175 (La. 1980) (same-evidence test described and contrasted with Blockburger)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (establishes Blockburger distinct-facts test)