State Of Louisiana VS Melvin Alexander, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 KA 2187 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS G MELVIN ALEXANDER JR Judgment Rendered September 10 2010 APPEALED FROM THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST FELICIANA STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 06CR585 DIVISION B THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G CARMICHAEL JUDGE Samuel C D Aquilla District Attorney Attorneys for Appellee State of Louisiana Clinton Louisiana And Amanda M McClung Assistant District Attorney St Francisville Louisiana Prentice L White Baton Rouge Louisiana Attorney for Defendant Appellant Melvin Alexander Jr BEFORE WHIPPLE MCDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ McDONALD J Defendant Melvin Alexander Jr was originally charged by grand jury indictment with two counts of aggravated rape violations of La R 14 S 42 Defendant entered pleas of not guilty to both counts At a later point in the proceedings the State amended the bill of indictment to charge defendant with two counts of forcible rape violations of La R 14 Defendant entered pleas of S 42 1 guilty to both counts After accepting defendant guilty pleas the trial court s sentenced defendant to serve on each count twenty years at hard labor with at least two years to be served without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence The trial court ordered these sentences to be served consecutively to each other Following sentencing defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas which was denied by the trial court Defendant appeals citing the following as error Did the district court err in accepting defendant guilty plea s s when it knew from the discovery pleading as well as d efense s ounsel c arguments that defendant mental state of mind was an s issue that had not been fully explored or resolved FACTS Defendant entered guilty pleas to charges of forcibly raping his two minor stepdaughters J and J M M DISCUSSION In his sole assignment of error defendant contends the trial court erred in accepting his guilty pleas when the issue of defendant mental state was s unresolved A defendant does not have an absolute right to the appointment of a sanity commission simply upon request A trial judge is only required to order a mental examination of a defendant when there are reasonable grounds to doubt the s defendant mental capacity to proceed La C art 643 It is well established P Cr 2 that reasonable grounds exist when one should reasonably doubt the defendant s capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him to consult with counsel and to assist in preparing his defense To determine a s defendant capacity we are first guided by La C arts 642 643 and 647 P Cr State ex rel Seals v State 20002738 p 5 La 10 831 So 828 832 02 25 2d As a general matter Article 642 allows the defendant mental incapacity to s proceed to be raised at any time by the defense the district attorney or the court The Article additionally requires that when the question of the defendant mental s incapacity to proceed is raised there shall be no further steps in the criminal prosecution until the defendant is found to have the mental capacity to proceed La C art 642 Next Article 643 provides in pertinent part The court shall P Cr order a mental examination of the defendant when it has reasonable ground to doubt the defendant mental capacity to proceed Last if a defendant mental s s incapacity has been properly raised the proceedings can only continue after the court holds a contradictory hearing and decides the issue of the defendant mental s capacity to proceed See La C art 647 State ex rel Seals 20002738 at p P Cr 5 831 So at 83233 2d When there is a bona fide question raised regarding a defendant capacity s the failure to observe procedures to protect a defendant right not to be tried or s convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial At this point the failure to resolve the issue of a defendant capacity s to proceed may result in nullification of the conviction and sentence under State v Nomey 613 So 157 161 62 La 1993 or a nunc pro tunc hearing to 2d determine competency retroactively under State v Snyder 98 1078 La 4 99 14 750 So 832 State ex rel Seals 2000 2738 at p 6 831 So at 833 2d 2d In certain instances a nunc pro tunc hearing on the issue of competency is appropriate if a meaningful inquiry into the defendant competency may still be s 3 had In such cases the trial court is again vested with the discretion of making this decision as it is in the best position to do so This determination must be decided on a case bycase basis under the guidance of Nomey Snyder and their progeny The State bears the burden in the nunc pro tunc hearing to provide sufficient evidence for the court to make a rational decision State ex rel Seals 20002738 at pp 67 831 So at 833 2d In the instant case on May 6 2008 defendant requested a sanity commission hearing which was granted by the trial court On June 19 2008 defendant filed an Ex Parte Motion for Funds for Neurological Testing In this motion defendant argued that although he was represented by retained counsel he sought funds from the Indigent Defender Board to retain a medical psychologist to test his neurological functioning In the motion defense counsel set forth that Dr Scott Stanley who conducted a competency evaluation of defendant believed defendant may have neurological damage The defense sought funds to have defendant evaluated for the purpose of presenting mitigating evidence necessary to his defense The record reflects that defendant was examined by J Scott Stanley M D and Charles Vosburg Ph on July 3 2008 pursuant to the appointment of the D Sanity Commission In a report submitted to the trial court on September 11 2008 Drs Stanley and Vosburg concluded that defendant was competent to stand trial could assist in his own defense and that defendant could appreciate the rightfulness or wrongfulness of his behavior at the time of the offense Despite the findings of the sanity commission the record fails to reflect the trial court ever issued a ruling on defendant competency to proceed s The issue of defendant mental incapacity was properly raised in this s matter Once invoked a request for a sanity hearing cannot be withdrawn but the trial court must make an independent assessment of defendant capacity to s E proceed to trial See State v Carr 629 So 378 La 1993 per curiam 2d wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the defendant writ application in s part to remand the case to the district court for the purpose of entering a formal ruling as to the defendant competency s see also State v Carr 618 So 2d 1098 1103 La App 1 Cir 1993 wherein this Court had previously rejected the s defendant contention that the district court erred in failing to redetermine under the correct standard the defendant competency because the record showed the s defense counsel withdrew the request for sanity hearing In the present case there is no indication in the record that the trial court conducted an independent assessment of defendant capacity to proceed by s holding a contradictory hearing on that issue prior to accepting his guilty pleas See La C art 647 State ex rel Seals 2000 2738 at p 5 831 So at 832 P Cr 2d 33 Accordingly we will remand this matter to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether a nunc pro tunc competency hearing may be possible If the trial court believes that it is still possible to determine the defendant competency s at the time of entering his pleas the trial court is directed to hold an evidentiary hearing if the defendant was competent withdrawal of his guilty pleas will not be allowed If the defendant is found to have been incompetent at the time of his pleas he is entitled to withdraw such pleas reserved See Synder 981078 at pp 31 32 s Defendant right to appeal is 43 750 So at 855 56 2d 863 State v Mathews 2000 2115 p 17 La App 1 Cir 9 809 So 1002 01 28 2d 1016 writs denied 2001 2873 La 9 824 So 1191 02 13 2d 2001 2907 La 02 14 10 827 So 412 2d In light of this issue we conditionally affirm defendant convictions s pending resolution of the issue regarding his mental capacity This assignment of error has merit 5 SENTENCING ERROR In reviewing this matter for error under La C art 920 we have P Cr 2 discovered the existence of a sentencing error by the trial court The trial court shall impose a determinate sentence La C art 879 P Cr The trial court sentenced defendant to a sentence of twenty years at hard labor on each count with at least two years to be served without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence The penalty provision of La R 14 mandates that at least S 42 B 1 two years of a sentence for this conviction shall be served without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence However the language used by the district court does not specify exactly how many years of the twentyyear terms that defendant will serve without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence Because the sentences cannot be determined we vacate these sentences In the event that defendant is found competent pursuant to the previous remand for the nunc pro tunc hearing the trial court will be required to resentence defendant on these counts SENTENCES VACATED CASE REMANDED FOR NUNC PRO TUNC HEARING CONVICTIONS CONDITIONALLY AFFIRMED 0
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.
