State v. HarrisState v. Harris
In this matter, we affirm the trial court‘s finding that the Defendant is a second felony offender.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendant, Marcus Harris, was charged with criminal damage to property in excess of $500.00 pursuant to
The State then filed a multiple offender bill of information alleging that the defendant was a second felony offender. The defendant had previously pled guilty to
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE
Defendant alleges that the trial court erred in failing to arraign him on the multiple offender bill of information.
In the present case, the defendant is correct that the trial judge did not advise him of his right to remain silent or inform him of the allegations against him. In State v. Perkins, 99-1084 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/25/00), 751 So.2d 403, 408-409, writ denied, 00-656 (La.12/15/00), 777 So.2d 476, this Court held that the failure of the trial court to advise the defendant of his right to remain silent was harmless error where the defendant‘s multiple offender status was established by competent evidence offered by the State at the hearing, rather than by the defendant‘s admission. In Perkins, the defendant complained that the trial court had failed to advise him of his right to remain silent at the multiple offender hearing. This Court recognized that the record did not reflect whether or not the defendant was advised of his right to remain silent. However, this Court held that, even if the trial court failed to so advise the defendant, the error was harmless because the trial court honored the defendant‘s right to have a formal hearing, and the defendant exercised his right to remain silent by not testifying.
As in Perkins, the trial court in the present case held a multiple offender hearing at which defendant‘s multiple offender status was established by evidence. Further, the defendant did not testify at this hearing. Accordingly, the failure of the trial court to advise defendant of his right to remain silent is harmless error.
The defendant further argues that the trial court erred in failing to arraign him on the multiple offender bill. This Court has held that a defendant waives his right to admit or deny the allegations in the multiple bill when he proceeds to the multiple offender hearing without objecting. State v. Allen, 93-838 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/31/94), 638 So.2d 394, 403. Because the defendant in this case proceeded to the multiple offender hearing without lodging an objection, he waived his right to admit or deny the multiple bill‘s allegations.
Therefore, we find that the trial court‘s failure to arraign the defendant on the multiple offender bill of information is harmless error and the trial court‘s finding that the defendant is a second felony offender is affirmed.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO
Defendant alleges that the trial court erred in failing to properly advise him of the delays for filing post-conviction relief.
The time limitations for filing post-conviction relief and the trial judge‘s duty to so advise defendant are set out in Article 930.8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as follows:
Art. 930.8. Time limitations; exceptions; prejudicial delay
A. No application for post-conviction relief, including applications which seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if it is filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become final....
. . . .
C. At the time of sentencing, the trial court shall inform the defendant of the prescriptive period for post conviction relief.
When the trial court fails to inform a defendant of these time limitations and when they begin to run, this Court may remand the case to the trial court and order it to inform the defendant of the provisions of
However, it should be noted that
ERROR PATENT DISCUSSION
The record was reviewed for errors patent.
For the above reasons, we affirm the finding of the trial court that the Defendant is a second felony offender.
MULTIPLE OFFENDER FINDING AFFIRMED.