State Of Louisiana VS Jeremy C. Brooks

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL T FIRS CIRCUIT NUMBER 2012 KA 13 89 lw V STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JEREMY C BROOKS ent Judgrr Rendered 2 g Appealed from the 22 Judicial Distr Court ct In and for the Parish of St Tamma Louisiana y Trial Court Number 514 F 506 Honorable Martin E Coady Judge j Walter P Reed Attorneys for Appellee District Plaintiff Attorney Covington LA State of Louisiana and Kathryn W Landry Baton Rouge LA Frank Sloan Mandeville Attorney for Appellant fendant D Jeremy C Brooks LA BEFORE PARRO WELCH AND KLINE JJ 1 Hon William F Kline Jr retired is serving as judge pro tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court WELCH J The defendant Jeremy e rv c aaks dby bill of nformation with rg possession of a Schedule II contrall rAUS sub cocaine in violation ddan tance of La R S C 967 40 See La Z S 964 dule A 40 Sch II The defendant 4 entered a plea of not guilty and was found guilty as charged af a trial by jury ter The trial court originally irr a sentence o fve ears imprisonment at hard posed After the defendant labor was ated felony adjudi a fourth habitual offender the trial court vacated the original sentence and irnposed an enhanced sentence of twenty years imprisonment at hard labor h c now appeals assigning ant fen error to the trial court ccep o his ip his fourth habitual s canGe f rto tnr l felony offender statuse For the following reasor w affirrn the conviction habitual s offender adjudication and senten e STATEMENT OF F ACTS On October 22 2011 the defendant vas arrested in the parking lot of Pat s Grocery in Covington as a part of a St Tammany Parish Sheriff Office s investigation regarding a stolen vehicle and cellular telephone Police officers approached the defendant in marked patrol units s he was walking near the car wash area The unifUrmed off cers xi their nits and with weapons drawn ted verbally commanded comply the def o ndant with the officers turned and e o cornmands xhrew began reaching taward his the fendant ground The dfailed to rt cellu lephone n the ground and stband As Dep Dave Levy stood uty guard with his weapon Corp 1 Libertv olstered his weapon and tackled ral Vlark and handcuffed the defendant During a search incident to the arrest a plastic bag Z The defendant habitual offender adjudication is based on the following St Tammany Parish s predicate guilty pleas on August 13 2007 to possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana second offense on April 28 2008 to possession of cocaine and simple escape and on November 13 2009 ta distribution of marijuana I 2 containing a hard rock sub later determined to consist of crack cocaine like tance was removed from the defendant sleft jac etpocket ASSIGNMENT OF E12ROR In his sole assignment f rr the d argues that he was never r t r fendz advised his at 2012 April 4 r ra arxai e 1 mulxiple offender bill of information or at his April 2 O1 s aaf cr c r eedings e t hiadjudication as a fourth habitual offend of his i remain silent or of his right to felony r tto be tried as to the truth of the alleg c tians nxain din the habitual offender bill of information The defendant argues that the h offender adjudication and aal bit sentence must be vacated The defendant contends that the record is unclear as to whether there was a plea bargain and argues that if there was a plea bargain then he should have been afforded the opportunity to decide whether to go forward with the plea bargain or have a habitual ffend rhearing A trial court failure to s properl advise defendant of his rights under the Habitual Offender Law La So 15 fl quires that the habitual offender 9 5 adjudication and sentence 2d 99 25 6 740 So 758 ed b vacat b1 760 tate vo Fox 98 La App I Cira s47 ria nder ft bitual f bill of information is filed the trial court in which th nstant anict was k shall cause the on ad defendant to be brought before it shall infarm hirn of the allegations contained in the information shall inform the defendant of his right to be tried as to the truth thereof according to law and shall require the defendant to say whether the allegations are true See State v 1Vlartin 427 So 1182 1185 La 1983 2d Furthermore the language of the Iabitu Offender Law l must be strictly construed In this regard an i integral aspect of the requirements of La nplicit and I ReS 15 is the court dut to inform the defendant of his right to remain 1 529 s silenta See State v 2473 Gonsoulin 2UO3 a App 1 S Cir 6 886 So 04 25 2d 499 501 en banc writ denied 2004 La 2 888 So 835 see 02 1917 04 10 2d 3 also La R 15 and 3 S 529 a D 1 At the defendant a se hearing r c April 4 2012 after sini n i r i ei r imposing the origia sentsnc the tria c ir tl defendant of the ai ur forrned e rnation multiple offender bill of info filed b e tate l he T trial ourt read the allegations in the habitual offer l c infa includin the prior de ill f ation offenses the alleged fourth or subsequent status and the minimum r offend applicable right sentence to admit The trial court then stated the following Sir you have the this deny this or remain silent At that point the defendant specifically denied the allegation5 in the bill ar the rnultiple offender bill hearing d date was set for April 26 2012 The State no its pinion that justice would be d served by the imposition of the minirn s ndex the Habitual Offender m ntenc Law At the subsequent hearing on April 26 2012 the State stipulated to a year twenty agreement and also indica tth d wou not be multiple d t fendant ld billed on another charge to w he iieh tly ue s a 5pled guilty The defense attorney then stated After the ben co o Ionor and speaking with hf r nc a my client Mr Brooks is going to stipulate he is in act a fourth offender per the multiple offender bill filed by the State TY trial court accepted the stipulation e withdrew the original sentence ar nthe t d posed year venty sentence In State v Harris 95 L S G So 6 per cu the 0900 95 19 4 2d 0 iam Louisiana Supreme Court rein the petitioner adjudication and sentence as a ated s habitual offender9 reversing tl courx af aru that the trial court failed to e s peal ing advise the petitioner of hi ights at the habitual ffender hearing befor the defense counsel stipulated to the s petitioner identity The supreme court recognized that ira the absence of any allegation or showing that the admission was involuntary the availability of post relief turns on whether the conviction proceedings as a whole accorded the petitioner fundamental fairness and due process of law While acknowledging that admissions of identity at a multiple 4 offender hearing implicate the defendant sFifth Amendment pxivilege against self incrimination the supreme court noted t multiple Offender proceedings simply should not be equated at least for urposes of determining the validity of an admission to trials of guilt or irinocence Th supxeme court further recognized that it had declin to adopt as a constitutic erequisite to a val admission of d l a d identity at colloquy a multiple r offend proc ng d which must accompany a valAd eanalogous tc the Boykin du pro 2d guilty plea See also Martin 427 So at 1185 We note that the defendant h was repres by counsel at the April ir r nted 26 2012 hearing and there have b o 11e or showing that the admission em ations was involuntary At the time of the stipulation the defense counsel informed the court that he conferred with the defendant and that the defendant would stipulate to his habitual offender status The trial court had the right to rely on this assertion made in the defendant presence as an accurat reflection of his intentions 5tate s v 2223 3d Cook 2011 La 3 2 So 239 1240 per curiam 12 23 At the previous arraignment on Apri14 2 12 tl rial au fi inform e t lly dthe defendant of the allegations in the habitu fb of inf and advised the l z ll e n rmatian defendant of his right to adm c d h Ylegations r to remain ilent t ny Furthermore the def adrr w clearlv art of a plea gand s on ridant iss s eement the defendant was f apprisec of l sentenc h was to receive The mflnimum ll e sentence allowed under the I iabitual Offender Law was imposed as agreed The sinterests were fully protec and any technical non with defendant ed compliance the statutory directives in La R 15 was harmless See Cook 82 S 529 a D 1 3d 41 So at 1240 see also State v Payne 94 L App 3 Cir 5 1628 96 22 677 So 2d 30 527 528 Accordingly w find no nnerit in the defendant sole s assignment of error 5 For the foregoing reason the d cvnvictiom nd sent are dan1 f e n affirmed V CONVICTIO HABITL F ON AND ALf 1 TT T2 ADJLTDIGA I SENTENCE AFFIRMED 6

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.