State v. CampbellState v. Campbell
Defendant, Thurman Campbell, Jr., was indicted by a Caddo Parish Grand Jury for second degree murder, a violation of
FACTS
On March 29, 1979, defendant loaned a rented U-Haul truck to two acquaintances, Charles Lacour and Dennis Ray Brown. Lacour and Brown failed to return the truck to defendant and abandoned the vehicle when it ran out of fuel. On April 1, 1979, the defendant and a companion accosted Lacour and Brown as they left a liquor store in Shreveport. According to testimony received at Campbell‘s trial, the defendant was armed with a gun and demanded a sum of money from the two men. Subsequently, defendant ordered the men to walk to the deserted parking lot of the liquor store where he again demanded a sum of money. Thereafter, Campbell struck Brown over the head with the gun. Allegedly, Brown, as he turned to run, saw Lacour raise his arm and then heard a gunshot. Lacour subsequently died of a gunshot wound to the head. At trial, the defendant contended that the gun accidently discharged when Lacour grabbed for the weapon.
Defendant assigns as error the imposition by the trial court of an allegedly excessive sentence and the alleged failure of the trial judge to articulate sufficient reasons for such sentence in accordance with the provisions of
The imposition of a sentence, even though within statutory limits, may violate a defendant‘s right, under the Louisiana Constitution, against excessive punishment. Therefore, excessiveness of sentence is an appropriate question for review on appeal. See State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La. 1979). In State v. Bonanno, 384 So.2d 355 (La.1980) we set forth the standard to be used in reviewing a sentence alleged to be excessive. Therein we commented:
”As stated previously, to determine whether a certain penalty is excessive we must determine whether that penalty is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime. State v. Goode, supra. To determine whether the penalty is grossly disproportionate to the crime we must consider the punishment and the crime in light of the harm to society caused by its commission and determine whether the penalty is so disproportionate to the crime committed as to shock our sense of justice. State v. Beavers, 382 So.2d 943 (La.1980).”
Additionally, in State v. Sepulvado, supra, we concluded that the statutory criteria legislatively provided by
The instant record indicates that sentence was imposed after a lengthy sentencing hearing during which several character witnesses and the defendant, himself, testified. Although the defendant contends that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for sentencing, an examination of the record reveals that defendant‘s allegation is totally without merit.
In State v. Spencer, 374 So.2d 1195 (La. 1979), we stated:
“...The trial judge‘s reasons in imposing sentence, as required by
La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1 , are an important aid to this court when called upon to exercise its constitutional function to review a sentence complained of as excessive. State v. Gist, 369 So.2d 1339 (La.1979); State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979). Moreover, the trial judge is given a wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within statutory limits, and the sentence imposed by him should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of his discretion. State v. Sepulvado, supra.”
Our careful review of the record in light of the standards set forth above reveals no abuse of the trial court‘s discretion.
The defendant had originally been indicted for the crime of second degree murder which carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. After four days of trial, the defendant, fearing conviction on the murder charge, changed his guilty plea to one of guilty of manslaughter with no sentence limitations or recommendations imposed upon the trial court.2 As we have repeatedly stated, the trial judge exercised all due diligence in specifically delineating his reasons for imposing a twenty year sentence on defendant. The record clearly supports the trial court‘s conclusions regarding the defendant, therefore, we conclude that the sentence imposed is both reasonable and just.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 3
By this assignment of error, defendant urges that this Court review the instant record for patent errors. In brief and as a footnote only, defense counsel alleges that during the Boykinization process, the trial judge failed to specifically inform Campbell of the waiver by virtue of his guilty plea, of his right against compulsory self-incrimination. Defendant now urges that this alleged defect in the Boykinization proceedings is an error patent on the face of the record and constitutes reversible error.
This court has previously addressed this precise issue in State v. Knighten, 320 So.2d 184 (La.1975) and State v. Williams, 327 So.2d 379 (La.1976). In the cited cases, we held that the voluntariness of a guilty plea is not an error discoverable on the record and that barring a motion to withdraw the guilty plea or the perfection of an assignment of error, the alleged error is not reviewable on appeal.
For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
CALOGERO, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
DENNIS, J., dissents for reasons of CALOGERO, J.
LEMMON, Justice, concurring.
I concur in the result because the record establishes the guilty plea was constitutionally valid.1
The 15-page Boykinzation, conducted when defendant decided to plead guilty just before completion of the state‘s case in the fourth day of trial, did not mention the right against self-incrimination. However, adhering to his contention that the killing was accidental, defendant referred to the state‘s witnesses as liars and admitted he had no witnesses to present other than himself. Under thorough questioning by the court defendant and his counsel then declared clearly and convincingly that since the defense evidence would not likely overcome the evidence presented by the state, defendant would prefer to plead to manslaughter than risk conviction for second degree murder and a mandatory life sentence.
Under these circumstances defendant was obviously aware of his right to remain silent and obviously concluded that the exercise of the right was of little benefit.2 When the overall circumstances are considered, this record establishes that defendant‘s guilty plea was entered voluntarily and knowingly.
CALOGERO, Justice, dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion for the following reasons.
The defendant, who pled guilty to manslaughter on the fourth day of his trial and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, appealed on the grounds that his sentence was excessive. He also urged the Court to vacate his guilty plea because of a patent error in the guilty plea proceedings, that is, it does not appear on the record that he was informed by the trial judge of his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
An error patent is “an error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the evidence,” and should be considered by this Court on appeal.
This Court recently reaffirmed its requirement that for there to be a valid guilty plea, the trial judge must advise defendant of his right to a trial by jury, his right against compulsory self-incrimination and his right to confront his accusers, and that a contemporaneously recorded record must evidence this advice and the defendant‘s affirmative “waiver of three constitutional Boykin rights.” State v. Williams, 400 So.2d 868 (La.1981); State ex rel. Warren v. Blackburn, 394 So.2d 276 (La.1981); and State ex rel. Cusher v. Blackburn, 400 So.2d 601 (La.1981). Since a review to determine whether this requirement has been complied with only requires a review of the proceedings and does not require an inspection of the evidence, it presents a patent error reviewable by this Court on appeal.
In the interest of judicial economy and of expediting retrial of this defendant, I think we should as a matter of patent error determine that this defendant was not properly Boykinized and order him retried.