State v. PerkinsState v. Perkins
STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Edward PERKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Ronald Cox, Alfred Boustany, II, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.
Carrol Spell, Don Landry, Asst. Dist. Attys., Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FORET and LABORDE, JJ., and REGGIE, J. Pro Tem.[*]
*49 LABORDE, Judge.
The defendant, Edward Perkins, was convicted of attemptеd manslaughter, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:27 and 14:31, and was sentenced to serve eight years in prison. He appeals this conviction and asserts two assignments of error:
"(1) The jury erred in failing to find that the defendant acted in self defense.
(2) The trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence and in failing to comply with the sentencing guidelines."
FACTS
On November 16, 1986, Charles Goudeaux was stabbed once in the abdomеn and once in the heart with a paring knife. It is undisputed that the defendant, Edward Perkins is the person that stabbed Goudeaux. Prior to the incident, the two were well acquainted with each other, although to sаy that they were friends would probably be stretching it. Goudeaux had lived with defendant, defendant's fiance, and her son for short periods of time prior to the stabbing. These stays would always ultimately end in a fight betwеen Goudeaux and defendant and each time the defendant ordered Goudeaux to move out. In one such incident, the larger Goudeaux (6 foot, 1 inch tall) pinned down the smaller defendant (5 foot, 4 inches tall) although Goudeaux claims he was simply holding defendant down to cool him off while defendant claims that Goudeaux was bashing his head into the concrete. Finally, Goudeaux moved into his aunt's house.
On the date of the stabbing, Goudeaux had borrowed a power nozzle from defendant to use to wash his aunt's home. Later that day defendant saw that Goudeaux was finished with the nozzle and demanded that he return it. Goudeaux returned the nozzle to defendant outside of defendant's home and apparently made comments that upset defendant. The two began arguing. Defendant was smoking a pipe and Goudeaux slapped it out of his mouth. Defendant then reached into the back of his truck, grabbed the paring knife and stabbed Goudeaux twice. Goudeaux ran to his aunt's house and collapsеd on the kitchen floor. An ambulance (which defendant apparently told a neighbor to call) took Goudeaux to the hospital and he did recover from his injuries. The police arrived and аrrested defendant at his home without any resistance.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
Defendant alleges that the jury erred in failing to find that his actions were in self-defense and thus justified under LSA-R.S. 14:19.[1] Defendant points out that he is much shorter than the viсtim and also that he has a crippled right hand due to a birth defect. He claims that Goudeaux's behavior was often erratic and violent and defendant was scared of him. Defendant argues that when Goudeaux slapped him, it caused him to fall against the truck. He reached in the back of the truck and grabbed the first thing he could find to use to protect himself. He then thrashed this object (the knife) in the dirеction of Goudeaux. Defendant thus claims that his actions were justified as he was trying to prevent a forcible offense against himself.
Louisiana law is settled that when a defendant in a homicide cаse claims self defense, the State has the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. State v. Garcia,
The State presented the testimony of Ernest "Turtle" Boone, defendant's neighbor, who stated that he had heard defendant on numerous occasions publicly threaten to kill Goudeaux. The State also presented evidence, which was basically admitted by defendant, that the defendant drank 3-4 quarts of beer on the date of the stabbing.[2] The testimony also revealed that Goudeaux, although larger than the defendant was unarmed at the time of the incident. Goudeaux did slap defendant's pipe оut of his mouth, but there is nothing to indicate that these actions were anything more than Goudeaux venting his frustrations toward defendant during an argument. It does not appear that Goudeaux was intent on causing dеfendant any serious bodily harm. Also all of these actions were occurring in the driveway of defendant's home. There is nothing to indicate that defendant could not have retreated into his home or even that Goudeaux would not have left the property if defendant had told him to.
As previously stated, we must apply a dual inquiry in this type of case as to the reasonableness of defendant's аctions and the apparent necessity of the force used. As to reasonableness of his actions, our inquiry is objective; as to the apparent necessity of the force used, our inquiry must сonsider the subjective state of mind of the defendant. After reviewing the facts of this case, it is clear to this court that defendant's actions were not reasonable under the circumstances. To stab a person twice (once in the heart) in retaliation to that person's slapping a pipe out of one's mouth is certainly not a reasonable action under the circumstances. As to defendant's subjective state of mind, he alleges that he feared Goudeaux and remembered the time that Goudeaux had allegedly beaten him up on a previous occasion. Tо say, however, that defendant subjectively believed that he needed to grab the knife and stab Goudeaux in the heart and abdomen with it in order to protect himself from Goudeaux's use of force against him, has no semblance of credibility. Further, we find, that the State presented sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proving that defendant's actions were not in self-defense. The jury considered аll of the evidence and found that the defendant was not acting in self-defense. We agree. Defendant's assignment of error number 1 thus lacks merit.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
By this assignment of error defendant asserts that the trial court failed to comply with the sentencing guidelines in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 and that defendant was given an excessive sentence.
La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1(C) provides:
"C. The court shall state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor in imposing sentence."
The purpose of this provision is to afford the reviewing court insight into the reasoning of the trial judge, so that the propriety of the sentenсe can be better evaluated. *51 State v. Price,
In stating the reasons for the sentence, the trial judge mentioned that he had received correspondence about defendant's son, that he considered the facts brought out during the triаl, and the sentencing guidelines in the Code of Criminal Procedure. He then sentenced defendant to serve eight years in prison. The maximum potential sentence for attempted manslaughter is 10½ yeаrs. Thus defendant's sentence falls within the permissible range; however, such a sentence may still be found excessive. State v. Sepulvado,
Defendant's conviction of attempted manslaughter is thus affirmed. His sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMANDED FOR RE-SENTENCING.
NOTES
Notes
[*] Honorable Edmund M. Reggie, Judge, Retired, participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore.
[1] LSA-R.S. 14:19 provides:
"The use of forcе or violence upon the person of another is justifiable, when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possessionprovided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent suсh offense, and that this article shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide."
[2] Defendant does not claim that his intoxication precluded him from forming the requisite specific intent for attempted manslaughter under LSA-R.S. 14:15. In fact, defendant stated that he usually drank 2 or 3 quarts of beer a day.