128 So. 3d 1220
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Kevin Wise was convicted of attempted simple robbery and sentenced to 3.5 years hard labor.
- An habitual offender hearing adjudged him a fourth felony offender under La. R.S. 15:529.1; sentenced to life without parole.
- Trial included defendant’s claim of blackout and lack of memory; police and witnesses testified to the crime.
- Lt. Russo apprehended defendant who was allegedly attempting to exit through a drive-thru window; defendant was unarmed.
- Defendant testified he blacked out and could not recall involvement; he had prior convictions listed.
- Court found patent errors on the habitual offender sentence and remanded for resentencing; conviction affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Habitual offender sentence validity | State argued proper enhancement; court vacated original sentence | Wise contended due process/validity of predicate timelines | Habitual offender sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing |
| Evidence of mental disease or diminished capacity | State allowed reasonable evidentiary scope; defense supported | Defendant should be allowed to present mental/diabetic impairment evidence | Assignment meritless; evidence barred by law; no reversal on this point |
| Timeliness of motion to quash predicate offenses | State timely; proper challenge to predicates | Motion to quash filed late; improper challenge | Motion to quash denied as untimely |
| Cleansing period proof for predicate offenses | Predicate offenses within ten-year cleansing period; sufficient proof | Dates of discharge insufficient or not proven | Proved predicate offenses within cleansing period; defendant valid as fourth offender |
| Brady/Discovery and ineffective assistance claims on appeal | State failed to disclose impeachment evidence; prejudice possible | Non-disclosure harmed defense; ineffective assistance claims persist | Brady claim not preserved; even if considered, meritless; ineffective-assistance issues require evidentiary hearing; not decided on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Netter, 79 So.3d 478 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (habitual offender sentencing issues)
- State v. Brooks, 807 So.2d 1090 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2002) (ten-year cleansing period proof requirements)
- State v. Hollins, 742 So.2d 671 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1999) (cleansing period and predicate proof standards)
- State v. Humphrey, 694 So.2d 1082 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1997) (ten-year cleansing period rationale)
- State v. Williams, 88 So.3d 1102 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2012) (insanity/diminished capacity evidentiary rules and admissibility)
- State v. Pitre, 901 So.2d 428 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2004) (evidence of memory loss and insanity-related defenses restrictions)