State Of Louisiana VS Michael F. Johnson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2007 KA 0634 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MICHAEL F JOHNSON Judgment Rendered September 19 2007 from the Appealed 21st Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Livingston Case No Louisiana 17624 The Honorable Elizabeth P Wolfe Judge Presiding Scott M Perrilloux Counsel for District Attorney State of Louisiana Appellee Patrick Walsh Dunn Assistant District Attorney Amite Louisiana Holli Herrle Castillo Counsel for Defendant Marrero Louisiana Michael F Johnson BEFORE YJ frfC Appellant GAIDRY MCDONALD AND MCCLENDON JJ y d0 m flft lf1ru1J WI Jdl f1Jx GAIDRY J The defendant information with grams not and knowingly of cocaine or more a police Following Following a a Johnson intentionally possessing the on jury trial the defendant was benefit of probation parole sentenced appeals designating three to thirty or 40 967 F of four hundred 1 He c pled motion to suppress statements made to the a hearing defendant bill charged by was violation of La R S The defendant filed guilty F Michael found was years the matter motion guilty imprisomnent The charged as at hard of sentence suspension denied was labor without The defendant now of error assigmnents We affirm the conviction amend the sentence and affirm the sentence as amended FACTS On March 6 Livingston a Parish Sheriff mobile home Parish 2003 on about Office executed s Selders Road During the search mobile home in a individuals the who resided defendant and place an live at the mobile home two driving a nor was truck as police described m was he a street from a pickup the defendant were arrested volunteered 2 Livingston together at truck was a One of these to contact the The defendant did not warrant the black male who would be About forty five minutes down Selders Road in deputies the drugs being phone inside the mobile home came Some in searched and upon target of the search that the defendant by the caller deputies from the warrant for narcotics at dead end order for cocaine from him blue four wheel drive at around 9 00 p search the mobile home Upon calling the defendant caller infOlmed the Sheriff s male individuals arrived individuals two at a small a The vehicle vehicle found in the vehicle dozen a were positioned a later pickup outside but out of sight to drove slowly cul de perimeter around the mobile home The defendant a past the mobile home He did not the end of the at sac establish When he anived street backed his truck up tUlned around back went stop but continued at the dead end the mobile home to to the he parked and exited his vehicle As the defendant walked toward the mobile home Marler approached Detective Marler him obtained his explained and then identified himself name to the defendant why Detective Marler Mirandized the defendant the deputies to the search The vehicle and searched but was there were but did not anest him asked the defendant if he could search his vehicle consented Detective Victor no He the defendant contraband was found the time the defendant During Stan Carpenter walked to the end of the tUlned his vehicle around entire time near turned around street was a drove down Selders Road and crack cocaine with arrested and brought a to The net saw visual contact tire tracks in the grass where Detective stopped bags clear were weight of The defendant refused to 3 Carpenter Ziploc bags shone of cocaine his on the dry and contained both powdered 34 532 grams Parish Prison Livingston process the defendant told Detective Ben defendant s constant outside the No other vehicle had gone to the end of flashlight around that area and found two the tracks was Carpenter where the defendant had The officers that road since the rain had next to where the defendant had heavy downpour shortly before the defendant the defendant had turned around ground street Detective being searched and maintained showed Detective There was Deputy Charlie Roberts who the end of the with the vehicle vehicle s Bourgeois put his The defendant During that the statement in the drugs writing was booking were the ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 1 his In first constitutional assigmnent of defendant makes the confrontation to right not U S 36 him under Louisiana law the caller and the violation The not was defendant harmless first s error truthfulness reveal the or the reliability As such with no use He we was of force drugs never that inadmissible the caller no examine hearsay not a as a source infonnation of was regarding the State should have been at was a required his to confidential informant the mobile home that was or promises the immunity by call the defendant and to It appears the confidential phone of informant was number and he the subject of ShOlily arrested when he got home defendant because he knew his statements s cross been used before find the caller confidential informant volunteered for the caller were 541 Washington v l The confidential informant lived the search warrant is officers had identity of the caller As discussed below of the person who since it contributed to the verdict contention Therefore the the defense because he to 2004 statements s confidential informant because he had information name since the defendant could not suppressed that his argues Specifically Crawford to 158 L Ed 2d 177 124 S Ct 1354 should have been arrest provided confidential informant pursuant a violated was following four contentions the called the defendant should have been was the defendant error after his police place an the order familiar with the spoke to the defendant ofthe confidential informant The issue regarding the identity of the confidential infOlmant was raised on the first day of trial in an oral motion to continue Despite open file discovery defense counsel argued the confidential infonnant s identity in his motion for a that several I The record contains bill no motion to reveal the identity questions regarding ofpariiculars had not been answered Following argument the motion to continue State was ruled that the caller not required to disclose his identity 4 was a the trial court in denying confidential informant and that the when he ordered the code words III informant provided the officers of vehicle he would be the When description as you ve to start got 1st Cir 3 28 02 So 2d 342 see L Ed 2d 527 cause As far 2 the with defendant confirmed as See State v where the for the issuance of search v informant 462 U S Supreme warrants 213 the being a s the first time 2001 1721 La App La 9 26 03 103 S Ct on as the defendant Comi found there based in part the everything denying writ denied 2002 1124 Gates s We do not find it true Lumpkin and within moments of Thus was 2317 854 76 probable the information of 3 anonymous Illlonnant When Detective Marler was asked on direct examination if the confidential infonnant by his name when he was on the phone with him forgot what he said what he called him because there and so f011h going on called the defendant responded Uh I work code words 3 race approached the defendant Johnson was confidential the confidential informant time also Illinois C an as 813 So 2d 640 1983 Mr the As the trial court stated in some and the type race the first time officers had used this caller was confidential informant motion to continue Marler contact confidential informant told them significant that this matched Detective initial making s name When the defendant arrived his vehicle defendant identified himself officers with the defendant driving of his description Fmiher the confidential drugs Detective Marler was a lot of code 2001 1721 at pp 9 10 813 So 2d at 649 the confidential informant was known but the information provided was his or her first report This Court found that the In Lumpkin information provided by the confidential informant as justified an identity they had corroborated investigative stop and that when officers confirmed the defendant probable cause to an est him and search the vehicle We note in the instant matter that while the confidential informant s inf01111ation was ostensibly reliable enough to establish s probable cause to arrest the defendant or search his vehicle neither the defendant atTest on the inf01111ation nor the search of his vehicle was based solely provided by the confidential informant The search of his vehicle was predicated on the defendant s consent and the atTest of the defendant was predicated on the discovery of drugs on the ground where defendant had just driven In other words probable cause to arrest the defendant arose from the discovery of the drugs not from the confidential informant s s information 5 Accordingly defendant to initiate fmiher find that the trial required disclose the to rule the State is not the accused to transaction dlUg a did court informant was Buffington an 452 So 2d 1313 La in the finding that name the State App defendant the confidential 4 1st Cir 1984 between the obtained were ground never contact transaction the as a not from result of OCCUlTed drug buy controlled a a to the phone call is constituted not constitute inapplicable should have been impermissible hearsay that the defendant makes testimony only that That 4 statements notwithstanding testified During no that may be the at trial his as oral to source drug s and the State was not are suppressed that the confidential under under Louisiana law of his complaint and Crawford Initially we note particular The defendant asserts by the caller should have been suppressed review of the entire record of every witness who what the confidential infonnant said reveals that the motion to continue confidential infonnant initiated the the drug completed drug a record references in his brief to any made our a of the confidential informant name statements to set up The since the confidential informant Accordingly participant exception defendant The defendant s second and third contentions s being seized being discarded by the defendant with the defendant did required to divulge the informant v the confidential informant made initial State transaction confidential informant and the defendant but rather from them buy that general a drugs forming the basis for the charge brought against The from the not was of a confidential informant illegal drug an We confidential informant exception is made when in pmiicipant en divulge to required not was a of this confidential informant As identity However a voluntarily called the find that the person who we phone the defendant suggested call to the defendant he transaction 6 that was a because the participant in defendant hearsay grounds on of Detective testimony objections made admonishment the defendant to all other objections p on inadmissible 19 either the v objected Detective Q A at an request on an failed a See State mistrial Legendre v 687 So 2d 489 regarding what lodge any the As 499 confidential contemporaneous Crawford confrontation violation the defendant has waived his La Code Evid art 1 03 A 1264 p Young 99 or a 942 So 2d 45 49 and State 12 11 96 to court admonition appeal 9 27 06 trial grounds of As such appeal CraYl ord confrontation sustains When the trial App 3d Cir defendant hearsay The defendant containing La the on an time App 4th Cir testimony See State 841 A La witness said these issues 1 n 96 414 informant 5 The defendant did not ask for later raise the issue cannot 2005 1469 p 5 Akins at any s and defense counsel fails to objection v mistrial or during the The trial court sustained all four of these Bourgeois the defendant by four times objected only 9 La right to raise La Code Crim P mi 1 App 1st Cir 3 31 00 764 hearsay grounds only He made no objections regarding any violation Following is that pOliion of the trial transcript on the defendant s sustained hearsay objections during the direct examination of Bourgeois Okay And what did he do during that phone call He placed an order for cocaine and Mr Johnson advised he would be in sic route By Mr Davis The Comi Q A Q defense counsel Objection Objection Your Honor will be sustained What did the person making the telephone call do He ordered up cocaine from Mr Johnson when he got off what did he tell you Now What was going to going to happen A He said that Mr Johnson By Mr Davis The Comi By The Comi Q Objection was going Your Honor Basis Mr Davis Hearsay Sustained The person what did he say that the person on do going to bring the By Objection Your Honor Hearsay The Comi Sustained Rephrase Q What did you hear that person on the phone say By Mr Davis Same objection Your Honor A He was Mr Davis The Court or Sustained 7 the telephone was So 2d 998 2 11 05 1005 See also State 916 So 2d 407 422 423 So 2d 207 error error or a La App 3d Cir 1 9 06 not are 936 whether the issue is hearsay violation the violation before Accordingly us a not was As discussed above the since it contributed to the verdict Crawford and hearsay issues p 21 942 So 2d 526 fomih contention is that s confrontation clause violation harmless 2005 36 writs denied 2006 1348 La La 11 17 06 2006 0667 The defendant Runyon v the harmless issue is moot This of assignment error is without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 2 In his second against assigmnent of self incrimination that the State Mirandized to comis waive are his 2003 2592 p 5 following being making inculpatory Bourgeois vested with great discretion when ruling the ruling of suppress will not be disturbed absent Long to rights prior right the defendant contends to Consequently suppress Specifically demonstrate that the defendant statements to Detective Trial violated to failed agreed was the defendant argues that his error La 9 9 04 U S 977 125 S Ct 1860 suppress the trial comi an not trial judge on a abuse of that discretion 884 So 2d 1176 161 L Ed 2d 728 did a on a 2005 find there was motion motion 6 State 1179 celio denied to v 544 denying the motion to anything sufficient to In suppress the evidence 6 the defendant s motion to suppress was cOlTect We may we are not limited to the evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion 2d So consider all pertinent evidence given at the trial of the case State v Chopin 372 In determining 1222 1223 n whether the lUling on 2 La 1979 8 The defendant discovered being brought the on Mirandized by Detective Marler at the Following his ground jail and booked to Bourgeois was motion to to him given affirmative Detective by Detective cooperate by giving the and that the drugs supplier because were The Bourgeois asked name The defendant the narcotics fully understood Marler his of his the Miranda or that he was anyone else involved with was not also that he did fully understood When asked information where the narcotics give the only one divulge the his of his name Bourgeois The defendant warnings by Detective Bourgeois if he had came from the defendant did not any wish to The defendant danger Bourgeois that he accepted full responsibility for told Detective at the involved present during the booking any information because his life would be in found the Deputy Ashford Detective Bourgeois asked the defendant if he had been Mirandized and responded in responded process when the defendant made these statements to Detective to wmnings Deputy Brandon Ashford who testified at the motion to suppress and the trial According was the defendant if he wanted to Also he could he would be killed drugs during the booking defendant supplier responded the testimony of Detective suppress and the trial process he asked the defendant if he to the defendant arrest the to According prior the narcotics scene It is the defendant s contention that while he indicated he understood his rights there is not agree We acknowledged Detective were no evidence that he find that the that he Bourgeois the defendant s agreed to waive those defendant waived his understood his rights and then rights question told him that the drugs found s 9 when he response to rights in We do at the scene Before confession may be introduced into evidence the State a establish that the accused Article I S 1966 Louisiana advised of his constitutional of the Louisiana Constitution and the 13 decision in Miranda 694 was In State Supreme Arizona v Brown v 384 U S rights under Supreme 86 S Ct 1602 436 384 So 2d 425 426 427 must Comi s 16 L Ed 2d La 1980 the Court stated during custodial intelTogation is sought to be introduced into evidence the state bears a heavy burden to show that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right against self incrimination and the right to When a statement counsel Miranda L Ed 2d 694 99 S Ct v 1966 1755 made Arizona 384 U S 436 In North Carolina 60 L Ed 2d 286 v 1979 86 S Ct 1602 16 Butler 441 U S 369 the United States burden is great and that defendant did not waive his Comi reiterated that the state Supreme s the courts must presume that a rights However in Butler the Court also held that the waiver of Miranda explicit but may the circumstances sUlTounding the statement actions of the person interrogated right rights need not be be inferred from the words and An express written or oral statement of waiver of the to remain silent or of the right to counsel is usually strong proof of the necessary or validity of that waiver but sufficient to is not establish waiver inevitably either The question is not of form but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in the Miranda case As was unequivocally said in Miranda mere silence is one enough That does not mean that the defendant s silence coupled with an understanding of his rights and a course of conduct indicating waiver may never support a conclusion that The courts must presume a defendant has waived his rights that a defendant did not waive his rights the prosecution s burden is great but in at least some cases waiver can be clearly inferred from the actions and words of the person intelTogated not 99 S Ct at 1757 In Moran 89 L Ed 2d 410 v Burbine 1986 475 U S 412 the United States Miranda holds that 421 106 S Ct 1135 1140 1141 Supreme Court stated he defendant may waive effectuation of in the warnings provided the waiver is t rights conveyed The inquiry has made voluntarily knowingly and intelligently two distinct dimensions First the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of the free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation coercion or deception Second the waiver must have been made with a a 10 full of both the awareness of the nature right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it Only if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation reveal both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension rights properly conclude court a may have been waived that the Miranda citations omitted In the instant matter Detective Marler testified at trial that he advised the defendant of his rights and that he understood his process when Detective booking understood the Miranda defendant responded warnings given an evidence in the record attorney to State v or wished to reason other than as a 142 L Ed 2d 155 119 S Ct 190 statements to informed of his could be Detective no Accordingly remain silent was Detective was that the There is no intimidated coerced to waive his right function of his free will to See 712 So 2d 8 30 cert denied 1998 the defendant had been from his actions and words we find denying the defendant s motion This indication to The adequately rights understood those rights and his waiver of those rights clearly infened at 427 28 fully find that at the time he made these we Bourgeois his were drugs belonged was suggest that the defendant Under these circumstances his who the Robertson 97 0177 p 26 La 3 4 98 525 U S 882 he by Detective Marler the deceived in any way which would have led him remain silent for any 7 him There immediate and without reluctance or to the During Upon being asked by Detective Bourgeois ifhe Yes by the defendant regarding defendant wanted 7 Bourgeois asked the defendant if cooperate the defendant stated that the drugs wished to response rights assignment of enor Bourgeois was also no See Brown 384 So 2d abuse of discretion by the trial court in to suppress is without merit present when Detective Marler advised the defendant of rights 11 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 3 In his third sufficient not that there no support his conviction was no evidence two to of enor the defendant argues the evidence assignment to establish that he had actual Due Process on the drugs and there was of the possession constructive or is whether or insufficient evidence Const amend See U S standard of review for the 2781 in the viewing the evidence not 821 B art 2789 L Ed 2d 560 61 is direct circumstantial and an beyond The Jackson Article 821 for State Patorno v 822 So 2d 141 testimony of any witness matters credibility evidence given conviction not its to the favorable proved 443 U S 307 319 99 S Ct incorporated both 4 5 pp analyzing factfinder must be reasonable every to accept or reject hypothesis of App La the 1st Cir in part the subject reweigh the evidence to appellate to oveliurn 12 a s or conflicting testimony depends matter is of fact sufficiency The trier in whole when there is Moreover the resolution of which not When provides that the 2001 2585 of the witnesses evidence is doubt in 144 The trier of fact is free of the a The 2 reasonable doubt See La Code reasonable excludes about factual uphold most light 9 objective standard for testing the overall evidence satisfied the overall evidence 6 21 02 to it violates as I art standard of review 1979 15 438 See a Virginia v circumstantial evidence La R S innocence stand Const La sufficiency of the evidence the essential elements of the crime Crim P XIV cannot any rational trier of fact could conclude that the State prosecution not to bags of cocaine A conviction based be the defendant contends Specifically physical evidence linking him was one upon a of the determination weight detennination of the review An factfinder s appellate of the weight to comi determination of will guilt State v Taylor 97 2261 pp 5 6 La 1st Cir 9 25 98 App 721 So 2d 929 932 To suppOli conviction of a substance the State he knowingly Guilty knowledge therefore is A possessIOn sufficient depends on the guilty of the crime of possession of need not physically sufficient the possess element essential determination of whether convict to substance In order to establish constructive crime dangerous substance constructive possession not a A variety of factors defendant exercised defendant with any person found substance the defendant evidence of recent to the drug drugs frequented by drug 6 23 95 dominion and control knowledge that illegal drugs s relationship proximity considered in are users 657 So 2d 1072 s access to be the to are area v over the the or drug including a in the the defendant s area in actual possession of the where the drugs found were the defendant s pmiicular Harris 94 0696 pp 3 4 La writ denied 95 2046 1074 1075 is determining whether and any evidence that the State one possession of the substance over a by the defendant use of To be case State must prove that the defendant had dominion and control contraband drug possession facts of each controlled of the the of the there is not or pmiicular a possession in was intentionally possessed or an dangerous controlled a that the defendant must prove and that illegal drug of possession physical area 1st Cir App La was 11 13 95 662 So 2d 477 In this case the jury was presented with possessed the cocaine found defendant constructively possessed the cocaine that only moments two by Detective Carpenter after he had actual possession 13 was theories the theory found on of who that the the of the cocaine ground and the defendant s theory that the cocaine belonged obviously concluded that the version of the fabrication was a designed to reasonable doubt State v jurors When the defense that Moten 510 So 2d 55 61 and hypothesis falls which raises hypothesis La 1st Cir App a the jury reasonably rejects unless there is another guilty The deflect blame from the defendant to hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant is 8 else suggested by the defense events involves circumstantial evidence and the case someone a writ denied 514 So 2d 126 La 1987 The jury defendant verdict s having just reflected left constructively possessed the the the reasonable where area where the defendant had ground was defendant cul de not wet given were found which heavy a s rested its case theory rain that had on the were very downpour The defendant is The See Moten was seized The defendant fmiher wet did not witnesses no motion for that there Also suggested no at the every evening defendant made similar asseliions in his same Further the thrown and sac The to the testify a testimony were ground drugs were The after the State that he on the actually bags of confidential informant defendant no the State testified found came directed verdict closing argument 14 Moreover directed verdict was no were presented admitted the fingerprints The and bags of bags the on for the defense that the caller time The two ground recently the defendant could have known that the neighborhood evidence stopped just prior 510 So 2d at 61 62 testify and gleaned from his defendant argued handled the cocaine that found was driven his vehicle through testimony that the defendant defendant identified before the seized in the cul de few feet from these tire marks The defendant did not cocaine was that the block When the defendant tmned around in the suggested they testimony established 8 moments his vehicle made tire marks the recent rebuttal from wet driving down sac cocaine still cocaine Through physical cocame testimony the State established that the cocaine area the conclusion was who through that denied The his Thus the defendant s confession of the thorough a suppOlis the jury beyond hypothesis verdict We s assignment viewing the evidence in any rational trier of fact could have the State to the of innocence that the defendant or more find that the evidence we convinced that are reasonable doubt and a hundred grams This of the record reVieW most favorable to light found possession drugs After the alone established actual exclusion of every reasonable was of guilty possession of four of cocaine of error is without merit SUPPLEMENTAL ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In this supplemental assignment of error the defendant argues that the imposed is excessive sentence Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 881 1 provides m pertinent part A 1 felony In of sentence imposition within cases within or the court may set at sentence or file B in a thitiy days following the such longer period as the trial state or the defendant may make motion to reconsider sentence The motion shall be oral at the time of sentence thereafter and shall set forth the writing or shall be specific grounds on which the motion is based E Failure include a make to or file a be based to reconsider upon which specific ground sentence may motion including a a sentence or to motion to reconsider claim of excessiveness shall preclude the state or the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or from urging any ground not raised in the motion on appeal or review The defendant an for appeal an on was June 12 appeal and defendant filed a an pro sentenced 2006 May 25 The trial comi order of se on appeal motion to was granted entered reconsider 5 2006 He filed a motion for the defendant on June 19 sentence on s motion 2006 The November 20 9 2006 Since the defendant filed his motion to reconsider sentence thirty days following the imposition of sentence the trial longer period appeal of time for had been entered IO Furthermore case 916 3 State see 881 1 A 0 f enol assIgnment the trial comi reVIewe d on had longer not set a order of an in the jurisdiction procedurally from having Code Crim La 1st Cir 4 8 94 App than comply with the time not appea111 did and sentencing he is balTed 1 Clark 93 0714 La v no since the defendant did requirements of Article th IS the motion at filing com1 more P art 635 So 2d 703 705 06 This assigmnent of enol is without merit REVIEW FOR ERROR The defendant asks that this Comi examine the record for La Code Crim P such La whether enolS Code Crim discoverable inspection by 920 2 art or P ali a mere not we such 920 2 a routinely reviews the record for request is made by we are limited in have found After sentencing enol defendant our See State The defendant s pro se brief is styled Motion to Correct an substance of the motion clearly indicates that the defendant is 10 a review to Under enolS careful review of the record in these a 9 being under inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without of the evidence proceedings This Court error v Price 2005 2514 Illegal Sentence but the attacking the sentence as excessive The trial court set the The defendant made no hearing date for the defendant s motion appearance at the hearing and on on January 22 2007 motion of the State the trial cOUl1 ordered the matter removed ft om the docket the II hearing notwithstanding At the conclusion of the The defendant s failure to appear at the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on motion sentencing defense counsel stated Your honor just for the object to the sentence and I believe the first fifteen was without benefit s objection did not constitute an oral motion to reconsider sentence on the basis of overall excessiveness Moreover a general objection to a sentence without excessiveness preserves nothing for appellate review stating specific grounds including record I would Defense counsel See State v Bickham 98 1839 p 6 La App 16 1st Cir 6 25 99 739 2d So 887 891 La 1st Cir 12 28 06 App at La Supreme Comi 952 So 2d 112 labor without the benefit of Under La R S 40 967 F imprisomnent at dollars eligibility Accordingly is a a fine of the for sentence to in not less than F La La App La 15 5 98 Also hundred term nor more than fifty thousand the denial of Thus is to delete unlawful that pOliion probation the defendant is the minimum amend the we sentence sentence defendant s parole the Resentencing is defendant the to parole prohibition us App 1st Cir 7 11 97 1992 not required maximum to However possible remand for we Because the trial period of resentencing after remand the case and order entry of the sentencing accordingly See State See also State 703 So 2d 698 v Benedict 607 So 2d v Miller 96 2040 p 3 700 701 writ denied 98 0039 719 So 2d 459 under La fifty mandatory filed years at hard labor with the first fifteen years to be served it is not necessary for 1st Cir cert serve a sentence sentence which and if necessary the commitment order 823 entire Therefore the district court to amend the minute 817 hundred two Under La R S 40 967 G fifteen years Subsection sentenced the suspension of less than fifteen years s without benefit of amending years at hard thirty not s parole thiliy imprisonment to all of the sentence be served without benefit of under provided for person shall be sentenced to defendant on suspension of sentence or eligible comi c amend the defendant we providing that parole l or than six hundred thousand dollars nor more parole petition sentenced was probation parole hard labor of years and to pay thirty banc 124 07 2007 K 130 on The minutes reflect the defendant of en RS 40 967 F thousand dollars nor more 1 c a than six hundred thousand dollars is However since the defendant is not 17 fine of not less than two inherently prejudiced by the trial court lenient s failure sentence to impose a fine See Price 2005 2514 CONVICTION AFFIRMED we decline at p 22 952 to correct So 2d SENTENCE the illegally at 124 125 AMENDED AFFIRMED AS AMENDED AND REMANDED WITH ORDER 18 AND STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 KA 0634 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MICHAEL F JOHNSON McCLENDON J dissents in part affirms in part and I agree that this record reveals enors that do to conect not the illegally lenient mandated contained in 600 000 00 a case I do not believe the failure to by the legislature should be ignored 14 967 F deterrent lenient sentence as resentencing remand in order to with regard to may under Price decline 1 with c a The range severity of clearly reflects that the legislature considered the fine would remand for to we Further sentence particular LSA R S of the sanction failure enor inherently prejudice the defendant However in this sentence sentencing assigns reasons impOliant as For these the of the fine 250 000 00 an I dissent from the by the trial court to integral part length of confinement reasons allow the conection impose the Thus majority of this I s illegally
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.
