| aThis matter is before us on appeal following the defendant’s, Crystal Reed’s, guilty pleas and sentences to three counts of second degree kidnapping in violation of La. R.S. 14:44.1 and two counts of armed rоbbery in violation of La. R.S. 14:64. Ms. Reed complains that the trial court erred in denying her motion to recuse the trial judge. She also complains that each of the five sentences the trial court imposed was constitutionally excessive. For the reasons fully discussed herein, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
Facts and Procedural History
In this devastating case, the defendant Crystal Reed, and her co-defendant, Johnny Cheek, embarked on a crime spree in the early morning hours that resulted in a wounded deputy, a murdered deputy, and three people — including an 81-year-old elderly woman and 12-year-old boy — bound and held hostage in their home.
At аpproximately 1:00 A.M. on Friday, June 16, 2006, Ms. Reed and Mr. 1 oCheek were traveling from Texas to Louisiana on Interstate 10 when St. John the Baptist Parish sheriffs deputy, Detective Monty Adams, attempted to make a traffic stoр in Laplace, Louisiana. Mr. Cheek, who was driving, ignored Det. Adams’ warning, accelerated the vehicle, and exited the interstate. After leaving the interstate, Mr. Cheek made a U-turn near a Race-Trac
To further evade the police, the defendants escaped down a dark road and turned off their headlights. Assuming they were in the clear, Mr. Cheek turned the vehicle around to head back toward the main highway when they noticed another officer, Commander Octavia Gonzales, approach from bеhind. Ms. Reed left the vehicle and hid behind a house while Mr. Cheek confronted the officer. After three or four gunshots were fired, Mr. Cheek reappeared pulling Commander Gonzales’ lifeless body.
Before fleeing the murder scene, the defendants confiscated the commander’s duty weapon, back-up weapon, and assault rifle and fled to Kenner — the next town over — in the commander’s expedition where they abandoned it. Knowing their capture was imminent, the defendants orchestrated a scheme to gain entrance into a residence for refuge. While walking through a nearby neighborhood, Ms. Reed, in a reheаrsed state of hysteria, frantically knocked on someone’s door at approximately 2:00 A.M. Yelling that she had been the victim of a robbery, Ms. Reed said she needed to use the telephone. Martha Hаrris, an 81-year-old elderly woman, answered the door. Almost simultaneously with the opening of the door, Mr. Cheek, who had been hiding, pushed the door in, and knocked Ms. Harris to the ground, breaking her hip. Hearing all the commоtion, Lori Parham, Ms. Harris’ daughter-in-law, was |4awakened and headed to the front of the house where she saw the defendant, Ms. Reed, standing in the foyer.
Once inside the residence, Ms. Reed inspected the house tо ensure that no one other than Ms. Harris, Ms. Parham, and the twelve-year-old boy were present. Finding no one else in the home, Mr. Cheek took Ms. Parham on a scavenger hunt throughout the house looking for telephone cords in order to tie them up. Ms. Parham testified that, while she was forced to help Mr. Cheek look for phone cords, she saw Ms. Reed in her mother-in-law’s bedroom rummaging through her purse for the keys to the car parked outside. The entire ordeal lasted at least 45 minutes.
Once Mr. Cheek restrained the three victims, he and Ms. Reed escaped in Ms. Harris’ vehicle. A police chase quickly ensued, ending when Mr. Cheеk crashed into a ditch. Mr. Cheek was able to escape; but Ms. Reed, who was pinned between the air bags, surrendered to the police. Ms. Reed was taken to the Kenner Police Department where she was questioned by Sergeant Royal Burke, a criminal investigator for St. John the Baptist Parish Sheriffs office. She was advised of her rights, signed the Advice of Rights form, and gave a voluntary audio-taped statement about thе events that had transpired. Approximately eight hours after being held hostage in her home, Ms. Par-ham positively identified Ms. Reed from a photographic lineup.
Ms. Reed was arrested and charged with three сounts of second degree kidnapping in violation of La. R.S. 14:44.1; two counts of armed robbery in violation of La. R.S. 14:64(F); and one count of aggravated burglary in violation of La. R.S. 14:6o. 1 She pled not guilty to each of the charged crimes. During the course of the proceedings, Ms. Reed filed a motion to suppress her statement, a |amotion to suppress the photo identification, and a motion to recuse the triаl judge.
Assignments of Error
Ms. Reed avers that the trial court erred in denying the motion to recuse and in imposing excessive sentences.
Discussion
Crosby Plea
It is well settled that a plea of guilty normally waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings prior to the plea.
State v. Crosby,
In this case, Ms. Reed entered unqualified pleas of guilty. During the colloquy with the trial judge, she stated that, by pleading guilty, she understood that she was waiving the right to a trial by jury; the right to confront her accusers; |fithe right to appellate review; and the right against self-incrimination. She manifested her assent thereto by signing the “Acknowledgment of Constitutional Rights and Waiver of Rights on Entry of a Plea of Guilty” form (Boykin form).
Both the signed form and colloquy in court are void of any suggestion that the guilty pleas were made subject to the reservation of appellate review. Because Ms. Reed did not tender her guilty pleas pursuant to Crosby, we find that she did, in fаct, waive her right to appellate review of any non-jurisdictional defects.
Motion to Recuse
In her first assignment of error, Ms. Reed contends that the trial court erred in denying the motion to recuse; and because of that еrror, any decision the trial judge subsequently made in the case is without effect.
Because Ms. Reed did not tender her guilty pleas pursuant to
Crosby,
the question becomes whether the trial judge’s failure to recuse amounts to a jurisdictional defect. In
State v. Sede,
Excessive Sentence
In her second assignment of error, Ms. Reed argues that the trial court erred in imposing excessive sentences.
In this case, Ms. Reed received the maximum sentence оf 40 years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for each of the three counts of second degree kidnapping pursuant to La. R.S. 14:44.1(C). Shе was also sentenced to 50 years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or 17suspension of sentence for each of the two counts of armed robbery pursuant to
Ms. Reed signed the waiver form which set forth the sentences that she would receive. Moreover, during the colloquy in thе district court, the trial judge informed her that if she pled guilty, she would receive the sentences that were ultimately handed down, and she acknowledged that she understood that.
A defendant cannot appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement which was set forth in the record at the time of the plea. La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.2(A),
State v. Cross,
06-866, p. 4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/11/07),
Errors Patent
The record was reviewed for errors patent in accordance with La.C.Cr.P. art. 920, and there is a discrepancy between the commitment and transcript. During the plea proceeding, Ms. Reed was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment at hard labor for each count of armed robbery, withоut restrictions. However, La. R.S. 14:64(B) provides that, “whoever commits the crime of armed robbery shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than ten years and for not more than ninety-nine years, without benefit of pаrole, probation, or suspension of sentence.” While the commitment indicates that the sentence was imposed without benefits, this is not reflected in the transcript.
^Nevertheless, when a criminal statute rеquires that all or portion of a sentence be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, La. R.S. 15:301.1(A) provides:
[t]he failure of a sentencing court to speсifically state that all or a portion of the sentence is to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence shall not in any way affect the statutory requirement thаt all or a portion of the sentence be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, (emphasis added).
In addition, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated, in
State v. Williams,
00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01),
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. The aggravated burglary charge was subsequently dismissed.