88 So. 3d 1102
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Levance Williams was convicted by a 12-person jury of carjacking, resisting a police officer with force or violence, and possession of cocaine; sentences run concurrently (20 years, 3 years, and 5 years respectively).
- A habitual offender bill alleged Williams as a third felony offender; the court vacated the original sentence and re-sentenced him to 40 years without parole under the habitual offender statute.
- On appeal, Williams challenges sufficiency of the evidence, due process/due course issues, and cumulative errors, with a pro se component asserting insanity/mental defect and intoxication defenses.
- The appellate court affirms the convictions and habitual offender sentence, and remands for correction of the commitment and related clerical actions.
- The trial court’s failure to order parole-ineligibility and certain patent errors are addressed, but do not alter the affirmance of convictions or the habitual offender sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the evidence sufficient to sustain the convictions? | Williams argues insufficiency of proof. | Williams contends mental defect/intent issues negate liability. | Yes; sufficient evidence under Jackson standard. |
| Does voluntary intoxication/mental defect negate specific intent for these crimes? | State asserts intoxication not a defense as no specific intent required. | Williams argues intoxication/psychosis negates intent. | Intoxication not a defense; no specific-intent element for these crimes. |
| Is the 40-year enhanced sentence within constitutional limits? | State supports maximum as appropriate given offenses and prior felonies. | Williams claims excessive and disproportionate sentence. | Not excessive given offenses and background; affirmed. |
| Patent errors and post-conviction/appeal procedures? | N/A | N/A | Multiple patent issues identified; corrected by remand and harmless error analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La.1992) (guides sufficiency review balancing admissible and inadmissible evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, State v. Mitchell (La.2000) (circumstantial evidence guidance on reasonable hypotheses of innocence)
- State v. Washington, 866 So.2d 973 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2004) (circumstantial evidence and sufficiency review in Louisiana)
- State v. Rowan, 694 So.2d 1052 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1997) (credibility determinations; appellate reweighing not allowed)
- State v. McCray, 908 So.2d 68 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2005) (insanity defenses and admissibility when not pled)
- State v. Lynch, 441 So.2d 732 (La.1983) (post-conviction relief timing and procedure (transcript prevails))
- State v. Bruins, 407 So.2d 685 (La.1981) (parole-disability treatment in enhanced sentences)
- State v. Singleton, 871 So.2d 596 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2004) (enhanced sentence correction procedures referenced)