State Of Louisiana VS Sean Vincent Gillis
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2007 KA 1909 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS SEAN VINCENT GILLIS Judgment rendered March 26 2008 Appealed from the 18th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of West Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court No 052577 Honorable J Robin Free Judge HON RICHARD J WARD JR ATTORNEYS FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY PLAINTIFF APPELLANT ANTONIO M STATE OF LOUISIANA TONY CLAYTON ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY PORT ALLEN LA and ELIZABETH A ENGOLIO ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNET PLAQUEMINE LA JELPI P PICOU JR ATTORNEYS FOR MAURICE TYPLER DEFENDANT APPELLEE KERRY CUCOA SEAN VINCENT GILLIS NEW ORLEANS LA BEFORE CARTER C l PETTIGREW AND WELCH Jl PETTIGREW J Sean Vincent Gillis The defendant degree second murder The defendant filed an suppress oral the to DNA challenge all taken sample prior plea of to State charged by grand jury indictment with 14 30 1 guilty The State pretrial rulings and denied were at a to the objected not guilty motion to a Thereafter the Boykin hearing entered plea by the State accepting The defendant was probation parole suspension of sentence The State We affirm the trial court s a reserving his to the trial court s at hard labor without the benefit of imprisonment pled inculpatory statements and The motions not The defendant Crosby 338 So 2d 584 La 1976 v Crosby plea without agreement sentenced to life 5 R motion to suppress a defendant withdrew his right violation of La a plea of guilty pursuant was or acceptance of the defendant s Crosby plea now appeals designating one assignment of error FACTS Because the defendant pled guilty the facts hearing the defendant stated I strangled Joyce to the indictment the defendant killed Ms Williams were not developed At the Williams and she died on or Boykin According about November 12 1999 DISCUSSION In its sole the defendant s not have the Crosby plea accepted the error the State argues the trial court erred in Specifically accepting the State contends that the trial court should Crosby plea without the prosecution s agreement defendant s to plea Initially right 1 assignment of to an we appeal address the defendant in this matter Article 912 A provides in pertinent part as Only a final judgment or ruling s argument that the State does Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 912 B follows is appealable The state cannot appeal from a verdict of acquittal Adverse judgments or which the state may appeal include but are not limited to judgments or rulings B 1 A motion to 2 A plea plea quash an indictment or any count thereof of time limitation of double 3 A 4 A motion in arrest of judgment 5 A motion to change 6 A motion to recuse jeopardy the not have the venue 2 rulings on from 1 provides those instances where appeal is allowed by the State an to the According defendant the type of appeal in the instant matter is not covered under Article 912 Relying the Commentary 680 on 16 SO 2d 227 within the to the and in the Criminal District guilty plea not Article 912 provides sentence are final not an exclusive list but from which the State may rulings is appealable under Article 912 the trial court that the defendant Crosby he was rulings dealing plea based According Ie any pre s the defendant to the State accepted by the trial We stated find no merit in accept a a to right language in this appeal merit to not to the going to acquiesce was tantamount to a was Crosby appeal the pretrial rulings unconditionally plead guilty in order to specifically those objected without reservation of the Crosby plea right to challenge to the It plea was the plea bargain and that the for the plea to be it would not have rejected by charged as the State valid complete a the The plea could court the State the trial court has very rather than its clear illustrative list of the judgments The State accepted the Crosby plea since the Accordingly proceedings plead guilty but that pursuant to with the conditions of the plea State contended that if it not be guilty plea was by appeal all pretrial rulings if the defendant did not position that the Crosby plea concur to end to the Moreover an reserving the right plea ruling then the State State had to record s end an Boykin hearing defense counsel informed going was an the State has suppression of statements straight up and down a State on judgment putting contrary is without to the reserving the right with the merely Accordingly conference prior historically case We find therefore that the instant matter appeal and the defendant s contention to the At a status a type of Court involving capital punishment brings or Shushan 204 La 672 v the the defendant states 1943 accordingly the judgment and case citing State purview of state appellate jurisdiction is limited to prosecution A 230 to Article 912 and s contention In Crosby the supreme great and virtually unreviewable discretion to court reject guilty plea conditioned upon reservation of appellate review of pre plea assignments of non jurisdictional error 3 Crosby 338 So 2d at 590 This language makes clear that even if the State court can reject the plea in its discretion own power with which the trial court agreed with the Crosby plea the trial Conversely under the reject the plea the trial can regardless of whether the State disagreed with the plea condition his acceptance by the tria to court Nothing in Crosby the or The State cites to State Crosby plea v Alston 94 58 643 SO 2d 1328 writs denied 94 2721 94 2733 94 2735 and writ denied 0811 La cannot reliance 4 Cir App accept on 96 0582 a to the 1 18 06 Crosby plea Alston and In Alston 5 9 97 La 693 So 2d 770 925 So 2d 577 s trial a La court can and State v Handy 2005 However a trial court the State s Handy is misplaced the defendant entered a Crosby plea The district attorney objected and the trial court informed the defendant that it could not plea accept 649 So 2d 419 proposition that agreement subject App 3 Cir 10 5 94 La 2 9 95 for the without the State errors is plea Crosby jurisprudence suggests that there must also be agreement by the State before a of the defendant to right review of pre plea upon the reservation for appellate plenary accept the plea court can The same accept a Crosby plea without the State s agreement The defendant s counsel objected to the trial court ruling but did not request of review from the court of appeal s entered an unqualified plea of guilty the pre plea rulings instant matter is Alston relying jurisprudential precedent cannot accept a on In its brief the State the defendant the s subject stay of the proceedings in order Instead to the an the defendant was to seek a writ Boykinized and charge thereby waiving any objections 94 58 at 2 3 643 So 2d at 1329 30 unchallenged ruling by in no way holds Crosby plea would have been a or even without the State s a suggests to The State in the trial court Alston in a dicta that as trial court agreement suggests that Handy demonstrates that the Crosby plea to an objection by the State motion to suppress the evidence In On the Handy the trial court denied day of trial the State reduced charge and the defendant pled guilty to the reduced charge reserving his right under Crosby to appeal the trial Handy 2005 0811 at 1 court s denial 925 So 2d at 579 of the motion The State 4 to suppress the evidence argued the defendant could not pursue the objection to the court s denial of the motion to suppress So 2d at 580 The fourth circuit found support of its argument applies trial motion added Moreover SO 2d at 581 the record indicates 925 at 5 argument noting that s made at trial instead of at pre rulings the State failed make to Handy 2005 0811 a 925 at 5 by the court regarding objecting to the Crosby observation that it an that Handy s Crosby plea to This additional comment simply was to district court contemporaneous Handy 2005 0811 the State no merit in a Handy 2005 0811 at 5 925 SO 2d at 581 The Handy court practice contemporaneous objection plea failed to make appeal because defense counsel the State that induced the defendant to was plead guilty by reducing the charge while reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress holds or even the State As with Alston in dicta suggests that Handy a as jurisprudential precedent trial court cannot accept a in no way Crosby plea without agreement s While a Crosby plea is a very specific type of plea bargain plea bargain that requires acceptance by the State The defendant was not offered the reduced sentence and plea rulings 2 s noted as objection appeal whether he entered If it to plead in return forced to waive the Moreover overruling the State opportunity is determined a by the trial to the in its brief review of pre right to appellate reasons for judgment the defendant would have or went to that the confession suggests trial and was type of to a lesser crime or offered a court in its Crosby plea Crosby plea the State as it is not the was found right of gUilty illegally obtained then reversal of the defendant s conviction is warranted a in a It makes no sense to force the defendant to trial in order to have this issue determined The court reasoned that if the defendant were to go to trial that he would be permitted to appeal so the court s granting of the defendant s right to appeal did not in the court s opinion give any apparent benefit to the defendant 2 For example in state v McKinney defendant received a reduced charge waiver of his review right to appellate The defendant s plea bargain guilty plea 406 So 2d 160 and made The McKinney to the reduced 161 62 affirmative charge La 1981 based on a court 406 So 2d at 162 of plea bargain the voluntary intelligent knowing attempted armed and informed explained robbery was the result of a In accordance with the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws review of an nonjurisdictional pre 1974 plea rulings a prosecutor Crosby in footnote 3 on page 589 5 may require 338 So 2d at 591 the waiver of and Rule 443 a appellate 4 cited The court reasons that if it is reversed on its denial of the suppression of the confession whether the defendant s sentence is based on a plea or based on a conviction at trial it is going to be reversible error and the plea recognizes the higher hard trial conviction will be set aside The court additionally labor for the remainder of his natural life whether the defendant pleads guilty found or that if its decision not to suppress the confession is upheld by court the defendant will receive a sentence of imprisonment at to the guilty after a charge of second degree murder or the defendant is trial The outcome will be the regardless of whether the defendant permitted appeal plea or at the completion of a full trial in this matter In this interest of judicial economy this court is of the opinion that to force a trial in this matter would be to force unnecessary costs and undue hardship upon the taxpayers of this parish the judicial system the witnesses the jurors the victim s family and the accused without just cause is to same at the time of his The trial court did not abuse its discretion in plea without agreement to the plea by the State accepting the defendant s Crosby Accordingly the assignment of is without merit TRIAL COURT S ACCEPTANCE OF DEFENDANT S CROSBY PLEA AFFIRMED 6 error
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.
