State of Louisiana Versus Jontreal A. Fisher ( 2020 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 19-KA-533
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
JONTREAL A. FISHER COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 18-979, DIVISION "C"
HONORABLE JUNE B. DARENSBURG, JUDGE PRESIDING
June 24, 2020
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY
CHIEF JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Jude G. Gravois
CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES ON COUNTS ONE AND
THREE AFFIRMED; SENTENCES ON COUNTS TWO AND FOUR
VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
SMC
FHW
JGG
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Thomas J. Butler
Gail D. Schlosser
Tucker H. Wimberly
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
JONTREAL A. FISHER
Prentice L. White
CHEHARDY, C.J.
Defendant, Jontreal A. Fisher, appeals his convictions and sentences for four
counts of possession with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, alprazolam and
methamphetamines, respectively. After a thorough review of the record,
defendant’s convictions are affirmed, defendant’s sentences on counts one and
three are affirmed, defendant’s sentences on counts two and four are vacated, and
the matter is remanded for resentencing.
Procedural History
On March 13, 2018, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of
information charging defendant, Jontreal A. Fisher, with possession with intent to
distribute heroin, a violation of La. R.S. 40:966(A) (count one), possession with
intent to distribute cocaine weighing less than twenty-eight grams, a violation of
La. R.S. 40:967(A) (count two), possession with intent to distribute alprazolam, a
violation of La. R.S. 40:969(A) (count three), and possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine weighing less than twenty-eight grams, a violation of
La. R.S. 40:967(A) (count four). Defendant was arraigned on that same date and
pled not guilty.
On July 16, 2018, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence that was
denied after a hearing on July 25, 2018. On April 22, 2019, defendant withdrew
his not guilty pleas and pled guilty as charged on all four counts. Later, on that
same date, the trial court sentenced defendant to twenty years imprisonment at hard
labor on count one, twenty years imprisonment at hard labor on count two, ten
years imprisonment at hard labor on count three, and twenty years imprisonment at
hard labor on count four, with the sentences to run concurrently. The trial court
also ordered the sentences to run concurrently with the sentences imposed in case
numbers 18-270, 18-5271, 18-5356, and any other sentence defendant was
19-KA-533 1
currently serving. On April 29, 2019, defendant filed a pro se pleading entitled,
“Ineffective of Counsel for Failures to Investigate Insanity Defense.” Thereafter,
on May 10, 2019, defendant filed a pro se motion to appeal that was granted on
May 15, 2019.
Factual Background
Because defendant pled guilty, the underlying facts of this matter were not
fully developed at a trial. Nevertheless, the State alleged in the bill of information
that on or about February 1, 2018, defendant violated La. R.S. 40:966(A) in that he
did knowingly or intentionally possess with the intent to distribute heroin (count
one), violated La. R.S. 40:967(A) in that he did knowingly or intentionally possess
with the intent to distribute cocaine weighing less than twenty-eight grams (count
two), violated La. R.S. 40:969(A) in that he did knowingly or intentionally possess
with the intent to distribute alprazolam (count three), and violated La. R.S.
40:967(A) in that he did knowingly or intentionally possess with the intent to
distribute methamphetamine weighing less than twenty-eight grams (count four).
Additionally, during the colloquy, the State presented the following factual
basis:
In case number 18-979, had this matter proceeded
to trial, the State of Louisiana would have proven beyond
a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, Jontreal Fisher, on
or about February 1st, 2018 violated Louisiana Revise
[sic] Statute 40:966(A), and that he did knowingly and
intentionally possess with intent to distribute a control
[sic] dangerous substance, to wit Heroin.
Further, that the defendant, Jontreal Fisher, on or
about February 1st, 2018, violated Louisiana Revise [sic]
Statute 40:967(A), and that he did knowingly or
intentionally possess with intent to distribute a control
[sic] dangerous substance, to wit Cocaine weighing less
than 28 grams,
Further, that the defendant, Jontreal Fisher, on or
about February 1st, 2018, violated Louisiana Revise [sic]
Statute 40:969(A), and that he knowingly and
intentionally possess with intent to distribute a control
[sic] dangerous substance, to wit Alprazolam.
19-KA-533 2
And count four, that the defendant, Jontreal Fisher,
on or about February 1st, 2018, violated Louisiana Revise
[sic] Statute 40:967(A), and that he did knowingly and
intentionally possess with intent to distribute a control
[sic] dangerous substance, to wit Methamphetamine,
weighing less than 28 grams.
These offense, all these offenses occurred in
Jefferson Parish.
Assignment of Error
In his sole assignment of error on appeal, defendant avers the trial court
committed reversible error when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress
evidence.
Law and Discussion
In support of his contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
suppress, defendant claims that Detective Cory Himel of the Jefferson Parish
Sheriff’s Office (“JPSO”), Narcotics Division, received information from a
confidential informant that defendant would be driving a black Chevy Cruise, and
carrying large quantities of illegal drugs to a specific location in Jefferson Parish.
Thereafter, when Detective Himel observed defendant driving a black Chevy
Cruise to the previously identified location, he initiated an investigatory stop
without having sufficient probable cause to believe that defendant was in
possession of illegal drugs. According to defendant, Detective Himel surrounded
his vehicle, thereby preventing defendant from leaving the scene. Thereafter, as
defendant opened the door to his vehicle, Detective Himel proceeded to search the
vehicle and allegedly found illegal drugs. Defendant contends that the officers
conducting the investigatory stop of his vehicle did so without probable cause to
suggest that defendant was engaged in criminal activity or was in possession of
illegal drugs. Further, defendant argues that there was no suggestion that any
exigent circumstances existed that could obviate the need for a valid search
warrant.
19-KA-533 3
Defendant argues that the officer’s illegal search of his vehicle was a
violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and
seizures and, as such, the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to
suppress the items illegally seized from his vehicle. Further, due to the alleged
violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, defendant argues that his arrest,
charges, and convictions for illegal drug possession and distribution should be
reversed. We disagree.
The record shows that defendant, who was represented by counsel, did not
enter a qualified guilty plea under State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584, 588 (La. 1976),
and thus, failed to preserve the issue involving the trial court’s denial of his motion
to suppress for appeal. Moreover, defendant does not challenge the validity of his
guilty plea.
When a defendant pleads guilty, he normally waives all non-jurisdictional
defects in the proceedings leading up to the guilty plea and precludes review of
such defects either by appeal or post-conviction relief. State v. Aguilar, 14-714
(La. App. 5 Cir. 1/14/15), 167 So.3d 862, 865. However, a defendant may be
allowed appellate review if at the time he enters a guilty plea, he expressly reserves
his right to appeal a specific adverse ruling in the case. Crosby, supra; State v.
Landry, 02-1242 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/29/03), 845 So.2d 1233, 1236, writ denied, 03-
1684 (La. 12/19/03), 861 So.2d 556.
In the present case, our review of the record reveals that the trial court
conducted a Boykin colloquy with defendant and explained to him the rights he
was waiving by pleading guilty. During the guilty plea proceedings, defendant did
not reserve any rights to appeal pretrial rulings of the trial court prior to pleading
guilty. Consequently, because defendant entered unqualified guilty pleas, we find
that defendant waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings that
occurred prior to his guilty pleas and no rulings were reserved for appeal under
19-KA-533 4
Crosby, supra, including the trial court’s prior ruling on defendant’s motion to
suppress. See State v. Nellon, 18-385 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/19/18), 262 So.3d 441,
444 (citing State v. Nelson, 17-650 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/23/18), 248 So.2d 683, 688;
State v. Turner, 10-995 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/27/11), 75 So.3d 491, 492, writ denied,
11-2379 (La. 4/27/12), 86 So.3d 625; Landry, supra).1 Accordingly, because
defendant failed to preserve review of the denial of his motion to suppress, he is
not entitled to the relief he seeks.
Errors Patent Discussion
The record was reviewed for errors patent, according to La. C.Cr.P. art. 920;
State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175(La. App. 5 Cir. 1990). We note two errors requiring corrective action.
A review of the record reveals that although defendant was correctly
informed of the sentencing ranges for the offenses on counts one and three, the trial
court incorrectly advised defendant of the sentencing ranges on count two,
possession with intent to distribute cocaine weighing less than twenty-eight grams
in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A), and count four, possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine weighing less than twenty eight grams in violation of
La. R.S. 40:967(A). Specifically, the court advised defendant that the penalty
range for counts two and four, respectively, was ten to thirty years at hard labor.
However, La. R.S. 40:967(B)(1)(a) provides that an individual who is convicted of
possession with intent to distribute cocaine weighing less than twenty-eight grams
(count two), and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine weighing
less than twenty-eight grams (count four), shall be imprisoned, with or without
hard labor, for not less than one year nor more than ten years. Here, on counts two
and four, the trial court sentenced defendant to imprisonment at hard labor for
1
Defendant’s sentences were imposed in accordance with the plea agreement with the State. Of
significance, as a part of the plea agreement, the State agreed not to file a multiple offender bill against
him, which resulted in a substantial sentencing benefit to defendant.
19-KA-533 5
twenty years, respectively. Consequently, we find defendant received an illegal
sentence on both counts two and four as he was sentenced to ten years more than
the terms allowed by law.
Pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 882, an appellate court is authorized to correct an
illegal sentence at any time, when the exercise of sentencing discretion is not
involved. State v. Mason, 10-284 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/11/11), 59 So.3d 419, 430,
writ denied, 11-306 (La. 6/24/11), 64 So.3d 216. In light of the discretion
permitted by the statute, we vacate defendant’s sentences on counts two and four
and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing. See La. C.Cr.P. art.
881.4(A); see also State v. Smith, 18-142 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/29/18), 253 So.3d
1314, 1321; State v. Brown, 17-346 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/13/17), 234 So.3d 1134,
1137-38.
We decline to address any errors noted in the State of Louisiana Uniform
Commitment Order, because the trial court will prepare a new Uniform
Commitment Order after re-sentencing on counts two and four.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s convictions are affirmed; defendant’s
sentences on counts one and three are affirmed; defendant’s sentences on counts
two and four are vacated and the matter is remanded for resentencing.
CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES ON COUNTS ONE AND
THREE AFFIRMED; SENTENCES ON COUNTS TWO AND FOUR
VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
19-KA-533 6
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
MARY E. LEGNON
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
JUNE 24, 2020 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
19-KA-533
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE JUNE B. DARENSBURG (DISTRICT JUDGE)
THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE) GAIL D. SCHLOSSER (APPELLEE)
MAILED
PRENTICE L. WHITE (APPELLANT) HONORABLE PAUL D. CONNICK, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW (APPELLEE)
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
POST OFFICE BOX 74385 TUCKER H. WIMBERLY (APPELLEE)
BATON ROUGE, LA 70874 ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
200 DERBIGNY STREET
GRETNA, LA 70053