STATE OF LOUISIANA VS LUQMAN MALIK SHABAZZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2006 KA 1038 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS LUQMAN MALIK SHABAZZ Judgment Rendered fk jfNr On appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Suit Number 4 05 277 Honorable Leon Cannizzaro Jr Moreau Assistant District Appellee State of Louisiana Attorney Monisa L Thompson Rouge Presiding Counsel for District Baton Rouge State of Louisiana G Doug December 28 2006 Attorney La Katherine M Franks Counsel for Defendant Appellant Slidell La Luqman Malik Shabazz Luqman Malik Shabazz Hanisonburg La DefendantlAppellant BEFORE In Proper Person PARRO GUIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ GUIDRY J The defendant grand jury indictment with RS 14 30 1 Following defense and He to the The State filed alleging he was agreement he a a not was to a second guilty and degree not guilty by found competent he plea agreement a sentenced he vacated the forty was felony habitual offender adjudged a second reason one of insanity 1 forty against the defendant Also pursuant counseled and affirm the conviction the habitual offender two pro sixty se plea years at hard to the plea offender bill felony habitual offender and the year sentence and sentenced him to appeals designating violation of La violation of La R S to habitual offender bill of information second a charged by stand trial and assist in his to manslaughter was was he withdrew his former plea agreement offense of murder agreed with the allegations of the habitual information now count of responsive Pursuant to the labor he Thereafter pursuant pled guilty 14 31 one initially pled sanity hearing a Gross Luqman Malik Shabazz alka Eric of court years at hard labor He assignments of enor We adjudication and the sentence ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Counseled The trial judge ed in en accepting explaining the nature of the offense that there was a record does not In addition to which he The factual basis for the plea establish that the plea the defendant s actions the defendant was was s guilty plea without pleading guilty or ascertaining plea is constitutionally invalid The entered into knowingly and voluntarily following the plea demonstrate his lack of understanding Pro se 1 Ineffective assistance of counsel 2 The The plea predicate was not offense made was 19th Judicial District Court docket knowingly intelligently set forth as 2 voluntarily April 30 2002 guilty plea simple robbery on April 21 1997 the defendant s 9 97 416 to or under FACTS Due to the defendant this The State matter the tlial cOUli the gave guilty plea there was no trial testimony concerning the facts in s moved attempted to another to set a factual basis at occun ed on hearing but police reports contained in the crime to that the provocation shot and killed the unarmed victim Abdullah The victim suffered ten the Boykin The matter of witnesses accounts forth the record defendant Ghoram in a without mosque The indictment set forth that the offense gunshot wounds 5 2005 February INVALID GUILTY PLEA In the counseled assignment of guilty plea without being informed 2253 49 LEd 2d 108 considered voluntary In pro explained La C CrP art se schizophrenic not shocks to accuser the plea he was a a guilty plea had 96 S Ct plea of guilty to been the defendant argues the prescribed psychotic patient and trial and The his must as a c for drugs be plea paranoid his level of education basis for actual conversion of or subsequent misdemeanor by pleading privilege against compulsOlY self incrimination must have 23 L Ed 2d 274 1969 c his right to b his confront his ascertained that the accused understands what and its consequences informed of the three a imprisonment have informed the defendant that jury trial where applicable and judge also connotes S Ct 1709 a be used to imprisonment felony the trial judge guilty he waives right a a 637 US 1 556 mandates that the elements of the offense assignment of enor number 2 b he enhancement of actual a Morgan 426 plea great In order for into v He also argues that in order for 1976 involuntmy because was was of the elements of the offense and thus the constitutionally invalid citing Henderson was be the defendant argues he entered his enor See Boykin v Alabama 395 U S 238 89 Boykin only requires that rights enumerated above J The a defendant be jurisprudence indicates that have been courts defendant of any other pp 2 3 La to extend unwilling rights which he 1st Cir 6 22 01 App the scope of Boykin may have 797 So 2d 735 State include to advising the Brockwell 2000 2547 v 736 Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 556 1 pertinent part III provides A In felony case the court shall not accept a plea of guilty without first addressing the defendant personally in open court and informing him of and determining that he understands all of the following 1 a The nature of the charge to which the plea is offered mandatory minimum penalty provided by law if any and maximum possible penalty provided by law the the Any variance from the procedures required by this Article which does not affect substantial rights of the accused shall not invalidate the plea E Initially basis for rise upsetting to the C Cr P we note La a C Cr P So 2d 1158 921 State v Guzman degree murder Henderson defendant of because 10 11 an plea guilty 99 1528 possessed 99 1753 independent 556 1 which do art 10 p La 16 5 to a Therein the defendant to indicate not 00 769 a finding after trial 96 S Ct at 2258 charge of second degree murder See State v to which he Young 646 So 2d 445 447 4 pled guilty to or an intent to commit second requisite the at 646 426 U S essential element of the crime had been omitted 94 an exempt from the broad scope of La not distinguishable admission that the defendant intent are degree murder but the record failed s provide 1164 Further Henderson is second not guilty plea Violations of La C Cr P level of Boykin violations art 556 1 does art was 93 2187 Therefore was the involuntary pleading the requisite p 5 La App 1st Cir In the instant and the defendant agreed offense of responsive transcript of the manslaughter with defendant s waiver of a of sentence a to the years and forty plead guilty sentence of in connection therewith defendant if he understood the plea agreement and he replied Yeah plea agreement with the if the agreement the judge his right confront and and his or intimidated him indicated that he himself and was giving pleading guilty to accepted his guilty plea to the right to to self incrimination get him or by The defendant no one to plead guilty Lastly the was court about himself comi or replied had forced no one s handling of asked the defendant if he guilty of the charge and the asked the defendant if there about his No had Additionally the satisfied with defense counsel The defendant by jUlY He also indicated that charge because he to say trial examine the witnesses who had accused cross plead guilty to was Yes Sir anything he would like The what the defendant wished up his representation of the defendant The defendant answered 2 was privilege against promised him anything in order defendant asked the I understand replied The defendant also indicated that indicated that he understood threatened court and the defendant in detail Thereafter the trial court advised the by pleading guilty he him of the offense set forth The trial sixty Defense counsel indicated he had discussed the Yeah defendant that to a responsive habitual offender bill of information a hearing court asked the defendant ten Boykin hearing indicates the State and the defendant following the filing of do and he The manslaughter him that the State would allow the defendant to offense of years the fully supported the charged offense provocation repeatedly shot the unarmed victim causing gunshot wounds and killing The to guilty plea s defendant without however the record case Sir case before the The trial court was court found In brief to this Court the defendant claims that in his interview with Dr Robeti Blanche denied any knowledge of the offense Dr Blanche and Dr Marc Zilmnennann both found however that the defendant was malingeIing he consistently 5 the defendant had knowingly intelligently freely and voluntarily waived his rights constitutional and entered his plea of guilty Herein the trial court sufficiently advised the defendant of all of his Boykin rights and made certain that his agreement counsel not to of life suspension of the plea in imprisonment at was his actions manslaughter and avoided the hard labor without benefit of parole 14 1 30 B the trial court and the record fails to could not know what he to guilty plea a See La R S sentence specify which of s prosecute him for second degree murder and with the advice of the defendant entered possibility exchange for the State In guilty plea was entered both voluntarily and intelligently doing the at He made probation motion no to withdraw support his claims that he did if any not or The defendant fails Boykin hearing following the plea or to demonstrated his lack of understanding These assignments of enor are without merit INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL In pro was se ineffective discovery move to c of assignment a by failing by failing quash based on to the appeal regarding number 1 move not e of convicted felon in notice of to move The defendant also argues charge en or the defendant argues trial counsel for pre trial for a bill of guilty and not particulars guilty by firemm claim e and g by failing and d of reason trial counsel allowed him possession of a b discovery to by failing to the failed to file f trial counsel to to insanity plea plea bargain trial counsel failed file to object to the procedure used to find the defendant competent Initially we note a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is relegated to post conviction proceedings resolution on appeal 411 cert State v unless Miller 99 0192 p the record 24 6 pelmits definitive La 9 6 00 denied 531 U S 1194 121 S Ct 1196 149 L Ed 2d 111 generally 776 2001 2d So 396 A claim of ineffectiveness of counsel is analyzed under the two pronged developed by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland U S 668 104 S Ct 2052 80 L Ed 2d 674 attorney was performance serious was that Amendment prejudiced ineffective he deficient which not was Secondly the defense serious that defendant requires functioning Rather elTor had This element was to counsel as deprived of requires a a to outcome State on perfonnance en ors were the outcome of the so unprofessional proceeding there is elTors of the trial would have been different an s 859 60 a Further perfOlmance and prejudice inadequate showing 610 So 2d 857 Serigny that the showing address the issues of both counsel v guaranteed by the Sixth It is not sufficient for defendant to show the defendant if the defendant makes components elTors so fair trial the defendant must prove actual conceivable effect some probability the it is unnecessary show that the attorney s showing that counsel made a he must show that but for the counsel s reasonable first must the defendant must prove that the deficient prejudice before relief will be granted that the Washington 466 v In order to establish that his trial 1984 the defendant test La on one of the 1st Cir 1992 App writ denied 614 So 2d 1263 La 1993 In the instant case claims defense moved for and obtained Claims system once decisions with an does not 71 La c a d and g a and b are without support in the record pretrial discovery concern matters of strategic and tactical which must The fact that 1993 7 the vast be made before and a our adversary anay during of trial trial rest particular strategy is unsuccessful establish ineffective assistance of counsel App 1st Cir Under strategy defendant has the assistance of counsel accused and his attorney The State v Folse 623 So 2d 59 Claims e and contained in the record 1356 1364 La f concern can matters be reviewed on outside of the record appeal State App 1st Cir writ denied 496 So 2d 347 v Only matters Vampran 491 So 2d La 1986 This assignment of enor is without merit CONVICTION HABITUAL OFFENDER SENTENCE AFFIRMED 8 ADJUDICATION AND
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
