State Of Louisiana v. Joseph Paul Grant ( 2023 )

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2023 KA 0303
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
JOSEPH PAUL GRANT
DATE OF JUDGMENT. NOV 0 9 2023
APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY- SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
V PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NUMBER 697- 2019, DIVISION G
HONORABLE SCOTT GARDNER, JUDGE
Warren LeDoux Montgomery Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Matthew Caplan
Assistant District Attorney
Covington, Louisiana
Gwendolyn K. Brown Counsel for Defendant -Appellant
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Joseph Paul Grant
BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ.
Disposition: CONVICTION, HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, AND SENTENCE
AFFU MED.
CHUTZ, J.
The defendant, Joseph Paul Grant, was charged by amended bill of
information with first degree robbery, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 64. 1. 1 Prior to his
arraignment and following a sanity hearing, the trial court found that the defendant
was not competent to proceed. Subsequently, after his competency was found to
be restored, the defendant pled not guilty. After a trial by jury, he was found guilty
as charged. The trial court denied the defendant' s motion for post -verdict
judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial. The defendant was sentenced to
forty years at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of
sentence. After he admitted the allegations of the multiple offender bill of
information filed by the state, the defendant was adjudicated a fourth -felony
habitual offender. The trial court vacated the original sentence imposed and
sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment without the benefit of probation,
parole, or suspension of sentence.' The trial court denied the defendant' s oral
motion to reconsider sentence.
The defendant now appeals, maintaining that his enhanced sentence is
unconstitutionally excessive and that he was denied the effective assistance of
counsel. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction, habitual offender
adjudication, and sentence.
1 The defendant was originally charged with simple robbery, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 65,
2 The defendant admitted to the allegations contained in the multiple offender bill of information,
which set forth the following prior convictions: ( 1) Theft of Goods over $ 540 on April 14, 2008
in Docket No. 07- 6671 in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson; ( 2)
Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine on November 27, 2007 in Docket No. 414- 660 in
the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans; ( 3) Purse Snatching on January 17, 1992 in
Docket No. 349- 230 in the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans; ( 4) Armed Robbery
on January 17, 1992 in Docket No. 347-789 in the Criminal District Court for the Parish of
Orleans; ( 5) Attempted Manslaughter on August 26, 1985 in Docket Na. 305- 085 in the Criminal
District Court for the Parish of Orleans.
FACTS
At approximately 12: 50 a.m. on April 4, 2019, Serenity Wright was working
alone at the Shell gas station located on Old Spanish Trail Road in Slidell,
Louisiana. While Wright was standing behind the counter at the register, the
defendant entered the store, walked behind the counter to where Wright was
standing, and grabbed her. The defendant pinned Wright against the counter,
pulled her hair, punched her, and told her to give him the money or he would shoot
her. The defendant then stole five packs of cigarettes and most of the cash that was
inside the register. He then exited the store, ran to his waiting vehicle, and left the
premises.
Wright locked the door and called 911, and the police arrived approximately
five minutes later. The responding officer, Officer Michael Koch with the Slidell
Police Department, watched the store' s surveillance footage and obtained a
description of the suspect and his vehicle, which was determined to be a dark
colored Infiniti SUV, Using the information obtained from the surveillance
footage, officers apprehended the defendant during a traffic stop several hours after
the robbery.
EXCESSIVE SENTENCE
In his first assignment of error, the defendant argues that the trial court erred
by imposing an excessive sentence.'
After adjudicating the defendant a fourth -felony habitual offender, the trial
court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without benefit of
probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, pursuant to La. R.S.
15: 529. 1( A)(4)( c). 4 Defense counsel then stated, without articulating any specific
3 Although the defendant listed two separate assignments of error in his brief, he argued both
assignments of error together. We will address each of the assignments of error separately.
4 Louisiana. Revised Statutes 15: 529. 1( A)(4)( c) states: " If the fourth felony and two of the prior
felonies are felonies defined as a crime of violence under R.S. 14: 2( B) ... the person shall be
3
objection or grounds, " Your Honor, at this time, we would move for Motion for
Reconsideration." The trial court denied the oral motion, and no written motion to
reconsider sentence was filed.
Herein, the defendant failed to adequately preserve this issue for appeal.
While defense counsel made an oral " motion for reconsideration," he did not
specify the grounds upon which the objection was based. Failure to make or file a
motion to reconsider sentence or to include a specific ground upon which a motion
to reconsider sentence may be based, including a claim of excessiveness, shall
preclude the State or the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or
from urging any ground on appeal that was not raised in the motion. La. Code
Crim. P. art. 8$ 1. 1( E). Where the defendant failed to object to his sentence as
excessive and failed to state any specific circumstances that would justify a more
lenient sentence, the defendant is procedurally barred from having this assignment
of error reviewed. See State v. Brown, 12- 0752 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4110113), 2013
WL 1459156, * 7 ( unpublished).
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
In his second assignment of error, the defendant contends his trial counsel
was ineffective based on his failure to file a detailed, written motion to reconsider
sentence.
Specifically, the defendant argues that his trial counsel failed to argue
that the statutorily mandated sentence of life imprisonment was excessive due to
his diminished mental capacity at the time the crime was committed.
As a general rule, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is more
properly raised in an application for post -conviction relief in the district court
rather than on appeal. This is because post -conviction relief provides the
opportunity for a full evidentiary hearing under La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.
However, when the record is sufficient, this court may resolve this issue on direct
imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life, without benefit of parole, probation, or
suspension of sentence."
4
appeal in the interest of judicial economy. State v Miller, 15- 1031 ( La. App. 1st
Cir. 12123115), 185 So. 3d 811, 815, writ denied, 16- 0152 ( La. 1/ 23/ 17), 215 So. 3d
N.
A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 13, of the Louisiana
Constitution. State v. LaCaze, 99- 0584 ( La. 1125/ 02), 824 So. 2d 1063, 1078, cert.
denied, 537 U.S. 865, 123 S. Ct. 263, 154 L.Ed.2d 110 ( 2002). A claim of
ineffectiveness of counsel is analyzed under the two-pronged test developed by the
United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104
S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 ( 1984).
In order to establish that his trial attorney was ineffective, the defendant
must first show the attorney' s performance was deficient, which requires a
showing that counsel made errors so serious that he was not functioning as counsel
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Secondly, the defendant must prove that the
deficient performance actually prejudiced him by showing that the errors were so
serious that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Miller, 185 So. 2d at 815.
The failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence in itself does not
constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. However, if the defendant can show a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel' s error, his sentence would have been
different, a basis for an ineffective assistance claim may be found. Id. at 816.
Moreover, when the sentence was imposed pursuant to the Habitual Offender Law,
the defendant must rebut the presumption that the sentence was constitutional.
State v. Johnson, 97- 1906 ( La. 3/ 4/ 98), 709 So. 2d 672, 676.
On appeal, the defendant argues that his trial counsel failed to articulate to
the court the extent to which his mental health affected his culpability for the
instant offense, as well as for his predicate convictions. In support of his
argument, the defendant points out that the trial court previously observed his
V
emotional and mental distress and determined he was not competent to proceed at
that time. Accordingly, the defendant contends his counsel was ineffective in
failing to argue, either orally or in a written motion, that the sentence of life
imprisonment was excessive due to the defendant' s diminished capacity and
obvious mental health concerns.
We have reviewed the record herein and find that it is insufficient to make a
definitive finding as to the defendant' s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
At a sanity hearing on August 9, 2019, the trial court referenced a prior hearing
where the defendant was " visibly disturbed, disoriented, and did not seem to
understand why he was [ in court]." Accordingly, pursuant to a doctor' s report and
both parties' stipulation, the trial court found that the defendant was not competent
to proceed. On June 3, 2020, based on the medical reports prepared after the
defendant' s reevaluation, the parties stipulated that his competency had been
restored. The record before us, however, does not contain the defendant' s medical
records (
either prior to the instant offense or leading up to his competency
restoration),
the medical reports prepared regarding his mental competency, or any
additional information regarding his mental capacity at the time the instant offense
was committed, or his overall mental health and acuity, or impairments thereto.
Accordingly, considering the nature of the defendant' s allegations, we find
that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim cannot possibly be reviewed on
appeal. Only in an evidentiary hearing in the district court, where the defendant
could present evidence beyond what is contained in the instant record, could these
allegations be sufficiently investigated.' See State v. Tingle, 12- 1928 ( La. App.
1st Cir. 617113), 2013 WL 2454316, * 7 ( unpublished); see also State v. Dantin, 19-
0407 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12117119), 291 So. 3d 1096, 1102. Therefore, this
assignment of error is not subject to appellate review.
5 The defendant would first have to satisfy the requirements of La. Code Crim. P. arts 924, et
seq., in order to receive such a hearing.
6
CONVICTION, HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, AND
SENTENCE AFFIRMED.