State Of Louisiana VS Tyree Young
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2007 KA 0900 r l STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS xc TYREE YOUNG Judgment Rendered On Appeal November 2 2007 from the 22nd Judicial District Comi in and for the Parish of S1 Tammany State of Louisiana District Court No 370037 The Honorable Elaine W DiMiceli Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee District Attorney Covington La Kathryn W Landry Baton Rouge La State of Louisiana Frank Sloan Counsel for Defendant Mandeville La Tyree Young Tyree Young In Appellant Proper Person Appellant Jackson La BEFORE CARTER C J PETTIGREW AND WELCH n CARTER C J The defendant one count of 40 967C a count one both counts of a Thereafter in Following offender the regard a on State Count 2 Cir So 2d 15 9 the defendant affirmed defendant For reasons conviction s Count 2 and the guilty as charged sentenced was to was adjudged to State court we habitual remanded the conviction for possession trial court adjudicated vacated his previous in the offender matter for State filed adjudicated defendant as a a fourth twenty years v Young felony at habitual Count 2 on was hard labor 06 0234 the defendant on sentence La adjudication as Count 1 2 Count on prior opinion App we and 1 1 956 were vacated the sentence on further proceedings a habitual offender bill habitual Count 1 of cocaine sentence five habitual offender was a previously imposed sentenced explained on concunently conviction and s Following remand the have found 943 So 2d 1118 1124 writ denied 06 2488 La 5 4 07 06 606 was both to guilty not habitual offender bill of information a The sentence was pled He that the defendant prior opinion of this a violation of LSA R S a and Count 2 he run the defendant vacated and the defendant In filed to Count 2 hearing 1 40 966C count Count 1 years at hard labor the sentences to alleging Count jury trial the defendant On each of information with charged by bill possession of methylenedioxymethamphetamine violation of LSA R S Following counts was possession of cocaine and Count 2 Tyree Young a fourth seeking on his hearing the offender based Following a to felony habitual offender and sentenced him to twenty years at hard labor se assignments of error The defendant appeals asserting one counseled and tlu ee pro We affinn PRO SE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The defendant filed a brief raising three se pro first Through his relation to of the defendant contends that the trial court ened in not to error his habitual offender assigmnents adjudication of error in assigmnent allowing him present affinnative evidence that the guilty pleas in the predicate offenses were constitutionally specifically waive infirm in that he his incrimination and his right right to trial of did he nor privilege against self accusers convictions predicate Second Judicial District Court that his by jury to confront his The State set fOlih five not informed was all from the Twenty summarized herein from the facts are found in the record 1 A conviction entered of cocaine March 14 on 1997 40 967C in docket violation of LSA R S a possession for number 258 777 2 A conviction entered possession of stolen on March 14 things a for 1997 illegal violation of LSA R S 14 69 in docket number 265 856 3 A conviction unauthorized entered entry of A conviction distribution 40 967 A 1 5 entered of on cocaine 1997 dwelling for violation a a 16 October violation 1997 of for LSA R S in docket number 274 865 A conviction entered of cocaine inhabited an 16 October 3 62 in docket number 274 804 ofLSA R S 14 4 on a on March 1 1999 for distribution violation of LSA R S 40 967 l A in docket number 296 359B Considering the two convictions entered conviction and the two convictions entered conviction the trial court on on March 14 October 16 concluded that the defendant habitual offender 3 was a 1997 1997 fourth as one as one felony In order to RS 15 529 1 defendant of the defect in the minute showing of in the judge then must the burden of and imperfect an weigh State v transcript with writ denied 05 0150 U S 905 126 S Ct 254 In the defendant La information conviction or a a an procedural constitutionality If the State form guilty plea a any combination thereof the 163 L Ed 2d 231 s pro se s prior guilty plea 17 12 1 Cir 04 brief he argues that the the State informed was Boykin 897 So 2d 736 cert denied 546 2005 In disagree prosecution failed to suppOli of each of the from provided expert testimony Dawn Tammany Parish Sheriff s Office Crime Lab fingerprints matched all prints The State also introduced minute indicating a 901 So 2d 1063 La 4 29 05 Powell who worked in the St s or App its initial burden of proof We predicate convictions defendant makes transcript example proving articulated waiver of the three an Leblanc 04 1032 that the defendant for the defendant proving that 741 overcome perfect a time he the evidence to determine whether the State has met voluntary and made rights a State must prove the perfect transcript a Once infringement of his rights an plea transcript the less than entry at the waived counsel proceedings predicate pleas by producing produces or Thereafter the defendant bears the burden of significant procedural irregularity under LSA punishment prove the fact of conviction and that the only represented by counsel plea affirmative enhance prior guilty plea to the State need was entered his use a the defendant was on the back of the bills of represented by guilty plea and was fully informed of his Boykin rights 4 predicate entries for each counsel at each at each plea prior the State Accordingly defendant contention that this evidence does s informed of his court ed in information second pro s allowing the en appears in the record se assigmnent The defendant previously overturned in a bill of infonnation after points of he argues the en or proceeded its presenting court but the State theory case was and he had bill reflects the State possession was to an to seeking of cocaine bill of information in obvious nothing to to reflect the State typographical sought to Count 2 as than habitual offender bill of information State enhance the defendant be amended more prepared was seeking to s notes that the conviction for On the second page of the habitual offender be enhanced second page of the bill was a allowed to amend the Our review of the habitual offender bill of infonnation amendment trial with possession of cocaine enhance his conviction for Count 1 sought to conviction had been out that this prior opinion by this to defend himself under that conviction This alleging he had been convicted for possession of meth bill of information Count I fully State to amend the habitual offender bill of The defendant contends that the State under Count 2 was the without merit In the defendant trial indicate he not Boykin rights is contrary to what assignment of error is Moreover its initial burden of proof met a en or the State refers to the The trial court allowed the Under these circumstances this typographical The cure plainly for a sets forth which enhance and the defendant had the benefit of enor conviction the representation by counsel Accordingly this assignment of enor is without merit In the defendant trial comi erred in s third pro se assigmnent of en or he contends the allowing the introduction of the authenticated bills 5 of information for all the basis that he had not been the The defendant predicate offenses provided copies of objected on the the documents that included fingerprints We do not find enor Defense counsel had in the trial court ample opportunity s to admitting of these cross examine the expert presented by the State thus the failure of the State of the to fingerprint produce copies fingerprints associated with the predicate bills of information did prejudice error documents the defendant in any manner not Accordingly this assigmnent of is without merit COUNSELED ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In the defendant comi failed to The s counseled infonn him of the assignment of enor he contends the trial delays for filing sentencing transcript indicates that the trial defendant of the two year fi om when a file can application for As the issue is raised herein it is the limitation and period him with such notice the trial comi to or has an 930 8A we notice out that including applications which seek if it is filed sentence have more defendant Under these circumstances generally provides advise the to conviction s postconviction attorney who is in the position Instead caution and in the interest of judicial economy mi failed relief relief apparent that the defendant has notice of an provide such postconviction comi period time becomes final in which he for no than two years application out an of time after the become final under the of an to provide remand for abundance of note that LSA C Cr P for postconviction appeal shall judgment provisions 6 we decline to relief be considered of conviction and of LSA C CrP art 914 or 922 State v App Godbolt 06 0609 La 1 Cir 11 3 06 950 So 2d 727 732 HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 7
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.
