State v. LawrenceState v. Lawrence
The defendant, Paul Lawrence, a/k/a Paul A. Yim, was charged by bill of information with two counts of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling, a violation of
1. The evidence was insufficient to support the instant convictions.
2. The trial court erred in imposing excessive sentences.
At approximately 3:00 p.m. on February 21, 1989, Mississippi Highway Patrolman Darryl Deschamp was on routine patrol on Interstate 10 in Hancock County, Mississippi, when he decided to make a traffic stop of a 1986 Chrysler with Virginia license plates which was occupied by two black males. It was later determined that the vehicle was being driven by Anthony Spencer and the defendant was riding in the front pаssenger seat. When the two vehicles came to a stop, Deschamp used his loudspeaker to order the driver (Spencer) to step out. When Spencer refused to do so, Deschamp exited his vehicle and approached the Chrysler, whereupon Spencer sped off at a high rate of speed. Deschamp gave chase while maintaining radio contact with his dispatcher. A long, high-speed chase began, during which Spencer and Deschamp exceeded speeds of one hundred twenty miles per hour. When Sрencer entered St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana State Police and St. Tammany Parish Sheriff‘s
Shortly thereafter, two black males were spotted in Ravenwood Subdivision at Pearl River, Louisiana. While babysitting at her brother‘s house on Charwood Drive in Ravenwood Subdivision, Beth Cape observed two black males walking toward the back of the house across the street (104 Charwood Drive). She notified a neighbor who called the police. Shortly thereafter, Spencer and the dеfendant were apprehended on a back porch of Dennis Brumfield‘s residence, located at 104 Charwood Drive. A neighbor, August Panks, who owned the residence located at 102 Charwood Drive, noticed that a ceiling panel in the workshop behind his house had been knоcked down, as if someone had been in the attic. Upon further investigation, he found a jacket, hat, and pair of gloves, which were subsequently identified by Spencer as belonging to him.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE:
In this assignment of error, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support thе instant convictions. Initially, we note that, in order to challenge these convictions on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, the defendant should have proceeded by way of a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. See
The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether or not, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could conclude that the State proved the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See
Unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling is the intеntional entry by a person without authorization into any inhabited dwelling or other structure belonging to another and used in whole or in part as a home or place of abode by a person.
At the trial, Mr. Brumfield testified that he did not give the defendant, or anyone else, permissiоn to enter the enclosed back porch of his residence located at 104 Charwood Drive. There is no doubt that both the defendant and Mr. Spencer were found hiding within his back porch. Therefore, an “unauthorized entry” was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. With respect to this offense, the only serious issue presented is whether or not this back porch was, within the meaning of
We find the testimony and pictures introduced at triаl to be dispositive of this issue. Two doors, one on either side of the fireplace, connected the back porch with the rest of the residence, Mr. Brumfield testified that the back porch was a part of his home and that his family spent a lot of time there. He also testified that the screen door to the porch was generally locked. Mr. Brumfield did not know if it had been locked on the particular day in question. However, a couple days after the incident in question, he discovered that the lock on the screen door was broken.
The three different pictures of this back porch, which were introduced in evidence
On the other hand, for the reasons which follow, we conclude that the evidence was not sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed attempted unauthorized entry of Mr. Panks’ residence located at 102 Charwood Drive. There is no doubt that the defendant and Mr. Spencer were together in the Chrysler automobile, fled together after the Chrysler left the interstate, and were apprehended together while hiding on Mr. Brumfield‘s back porch. Additionally, Ms. Cape spotted two black males going behind Mr. Brumfield‘s residence. Although they were too far away for her to later identify, it seems reasonably certain that these two black males were Spencer and the defendant, who were apprehended on Mr. Brumfield‘s back porch shortly after Ms. Cape‘s neighbor called the police. Finally, some of Mr. Spencer‘s clothes were discovered in Mr. Panks’ workshop attic. Taken together, all of these facts would imply that the defendant and Spencer were also together when an unauthorized entry into the workshop was made. Nevertheless, no direct evidence placed the defendant in the workshop, nor were his fingerprints or clothes found there. When viewed together, all of the evidence herein is not sufficient to convict the defendant of attempted unauthorized entry into an inhabited dwelling because a reasonable hypothesis of innocence has not been excluded, i.e., that the defendant simрly did not enter the workshop and did not act as a principal during Mr. Spencer‘s entry therein. It is indeed possible that, for a short time, Spencer and the defendant separated and Spencer alone entered the workshop. While it might not seem likely that such a sepаration occurred, this scenario is not so unreasonable that it cannot be considered a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Therefore, because we find that the overall evidence does not exclude a reasonable hypothesis of the defendant‘s innocence, the conviction and sentence for attempted unauthorized entry of Mr. Panks’ residence located at 102 Charwood Drive is hereby reversed.2
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO:
In this assignment of error, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing excessivе sentences. Having reversed the defendant‘s conviction and sentence for attempted unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling (Count 1), we consider the defendant‘s excessive sentence argument only as to the remaining conviction for unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwеlling (Count 2). Likewise, our reversal of one of these two convictions precludes any consideration of the defendant‘s related argument that the imposition of enhanced sentences (pursuant to
The Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth items which must be considered by the trial court before imposing sentence.
Although a sentence falls within statutory limits, it may be excessive. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 767 (La.1979). However, the trial court hаs great discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory limits; and such a sentence will not be set aside as excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Garner, 532 So.2d 429, 434 (La.App. 1st Cir.1988).
Before imposing sentence, the trial court noted that it had reviewed the presentence investigation report, which indicated that the defendant had prior felony convictions from Virginia for credit card theft, forgery, and attempting to obtain by false pretenses. The defendant had received three suspended, consecutive sentences of two years imрrisonment for each conviction and was on probation for the Virginia convictions when he committed the instant offense. The trial court also noted the defendant‘s age and his ineligibility for a suspended sentence and probation. The trial court found that the defendаnt was likely to commit further offenses and concluded that he was in need of correctional treatment. Finally, the trial court stated that any lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the offense. We find that the trial court adequately compliеd with the Article 894.1 guidelines.
For his conviction of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling and subsequent adjudication as a second felony habitual offender, the defendant was exposed to a minimum sentence of two years, a maximum sentence of twelve years at hard labor, аnd a fine of $1,000.00. See
This assignment of error is meritless. For the above reasons, the conviction and sentence for the offense of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling are affirmed. The conviction and sentence for the offense of attemptеd unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling are reversed.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.