State Of Louisiana VS Frederick Nathan Campbell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 KA 0693 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS FREDERICK NATHAN CAMPBELL 9 Judgment Rendered October 29 2010 Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Case No 409063 The Honorable William J Knight Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Counsel for Appellee District Attorney Kathryn Landry Special Appeals Counsel Baton Rouge Louisiana State of Louisiana Frank Sloan Counsel for DefendantAppellant Frederick Nathan Campbell Mandeville Louisiana BEFORE CARTER C GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ J GAIDRY I The defendant Frederick Nathan Campbell was charged by bill of information with one count of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile count I a violation of La R 14 and one count of cruelty to juveniles count S 80 II a violation of La R 14 S 93 He pled not guilty on both counts Following a jury trial on count I he was found guilty as charged and on count Il he was found not guilty years at hard labor On count I he was sentenced to nine Thereafter the State filed a habitual offender bill of information against the defendant alleging he was a fifthfelony habitual offender Following a hearing he was adjudged a fourth felony habitual offender The court then vacated the previously imposed sentence and on count I sentenced the defendant to twenty years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence The defendant now appeals contending the trial court illegally denied him eligibility for parole For the following reasons we affirm the conviction affirm the habitual offender adjudication amend the sentence and affirm the sentence as amended FACTS The victim S testified at trial Her date of birth was July 11 1989 C On December 10 2005 she was dating the defendant and had been in a sexual relationship with him for approximately one year During the Predicate 1 was set forth as the defendant conviction under Twenty second s Judicial District Court Docket 348868 for aggravated battery a violation of La R S 34 14 Predicate 2 was set forth as the defendant conviction under Thirtieth Judicial s District Court Docket 53199 for simple escape a violation of La R 14 S 110 Predicate 3 was set forth as the defendant conviction under Ninth Judicial District s Court Docket 244821 for aggravated burglary a violation of La R 14 Predicate S 60 4 was set forth as the defendant conviction under Twentysecond Judicial District s Court Docket 250884 of possession of stolen things wherein the value was over 500 a violation of La R 14 S 69 The fingerprints appearing on the documentation concerning predicate 3 were incomplete 3 The victim is referenced herein only by her initials See La R 46 S 1844 W 2 relationship the defendant frequently had vaginal sexual intercourse with the victim in his mother house During her sexual relationship with the s defendant the victim acquired a disease from sleeping with a man She indicated the defendant was the only man she was messing with The police learned of the sexual relationship between the victim and the defendant after he punched her in the eye during an argument following her discovery that he had left her son not the defendant child with a woman he s was also dating Upon being arrested and advised of his Miranda rights the defendant indicated his date of birth was October 4 1973 He also stated I didn hit that girl I been messing with her for six months but I didn t ve t hit her ILLEGAL SENTENCE In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues the sentence imposed is illegal because the trial court denied him eligibility for parole but neither the substantive offense nor the habitual offender law restricts eligibility for parole The State agrees The trial court imposed the sentence herein without benefit of parole However neither La R 14 prior to amendment by 2010 La Acts S 80 D No 763 1 La R 15 nor La R 15 S 529 i c A 1 S 529 G 1 restrict parole eligibility Accordingly we amend the sentence to strike and delete the portion of the sentence that provides it shall be served without benefit of parole See La Code Crim P art 882 State v Charles 2000 A 0664 pp 5 6 La App 1 st Cir 12 775 So 667 670 writ denied 00 22 2d 2001 1067 La 1 So 1186 805 02 4 2d 4 5 Miranda v Arizona 384 U 436 86 S 1602 16 L 694 1966 S Ct 2d Ed It is not a crime to be an habitual offender The statute increases the sentence for a recidivist The penalty increase is computed by reference to the sentencing provisions of the underlying offense Similarly the conditions imposed on the sentence are those called for in the reference statute State v Bruins 407 So 685 687 La 1981 2d 3 DECREE For the reasons set forth above the defendant conviction and s habitual offender adjudication are affirmed and the defendant sentence is s amended and as amended affirmed CONVICTION AND HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION AFFIRMED SENTENCE AMENDED AMENDED 0 AND AFFIRMED AS
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.
