State v. WatkinsState v. Watkins
The defendant, Michael Jerry Watkins, was charged with possession of Schedule III narcotics, steroids, with intent to distribute, a violation of
FACTS
The Iberia Parish Sheriff‘s Office received information frоm an informant that the defendant was or would be in possession of a large quantity of steroids. Based on that information, thе Sheriff‘s Office stopped the defendant‘s vehicle on March 13, 1995 and, thereafter, obtained verbal permission to sеarch the vehicle. According to the arresting officer, the search uncovered approximately fourtеen to sixteen preloaded syringes containing steroids and 482 tablets of steroids.
In assignments two and three, the defendant сontends the trial court erred in sentencing him. The State argues the defendant is precluded from seeking review of his sentence, pursuant to
The charge to which the defеndant pled, simple possession of steroids, carried by statute a maximum penalty of five years.
The present case differs from Goodman in one important way. In this case, the trial court clearly enunciated the plea agreement between the parties including the provision imposing a cap of five years regardless of the outcome of the pre-sentence investigation. The defendаnt and his attorney acknowledged the content of the plea agreement on the record. Defendant, subsequently received a sentence of three years at hard labor and forfeited his vehicle and $1,000.00 cash which were seized at the time of his arrest.
In light of defendant‘s clear intention to enter a plea agreement with a cap of five years, we find that the present case is controlled by State v. Young, 96-0195 (La.10/15/96); 680 So.2d 1171. In that case the supreme court held that
HEARSAY
The defendant also contends the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence during the sentencing hearing in the form of hearsay testimony. The defendant asserts he was prejudiced as the hearsay testimony reflectеd negative information which had not been included in the Pre-Sentence Investigation report and was offered for “thе sole purpose of inflaming the judge.”
Except as otherwise provided by Article 1101(A)(2) and other legislation, the provisiоns of this Code [of Evidence] shall not apply to the following:
....
(4) Sentencing hearings except as provided in Code of Criminal Procedure Article 905.2 in capital cases ...
Moreover, a sentencing court may consider sources of information normally excluded from the trial court during the guilt phase. In State v. Myles, 94-0217, p. 2-3 (La.6/3/94); 638 So.2d 218, 219, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated:
The sources of information relied upon by the sentеncing court are varied and may include evidence usually excluded from the courtroom at the trial of guilt or innoсence, e.g., hearsay and arrest as well as conviction records. Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949); State v. Washington, 414 So.2d 313 (La.1982); State v. Brown, 410 So.2d 1043 (La.1982). Because the scope of information available to the court for sentencing purposes is so broad, the defendant has a due process right to rebut prejudicially false or misleading information which may affect the sentencing determination. State v. Lockwood, 439 So.2d 394 (La.1983); State v. Parish, 429 So.2d 442 (La.1983); State v. Underwood, 353 So.2d 1013 (La. 1978). The defendant also has the due process right to sentencing free of assumptions
about his prior record which are materially untrue. Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948); cf., United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972).
Thus, the normal rules of evidence governing hearsay dо not apply in a sentencing hearing. Much of the testimony to which the defendant refers deals with evidence of othеr crimes. We note the defendant received written notice prior to his sentencing hearing of the State‘s intention tо present evidence of the defendant‘s distribution of narcotics which allegedly occurred before the date of his arrest. The defendant was given the opportunity to rebut the evidence at his sentencing hearing, and he did appear at the hearing to deny the allegations made by the State witnesses. Furthermore, in overruling the defendant‘s objection, the trial court recognized that the testimony was based on hearsay and thus considered less credible than testimony based on firsthand observation. Therefore, this assignment of error lacks merit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant‘s sentence is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.