State Of Louisiana VS Wayne Michael Simms

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LO J SIA JA CJIiIRT OF AF' P 4. FIRST' CIR UTT N0. 2013 KA 16Z7 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS WAYNE MICHAEL SIMMS 7udgment rendered MAR 21 20?4 Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana Trial Court No. 494508 Honorable Raymond S, Childress, Judge WALTER P. REED ATTORNEYS FOR DISfRICT ATTORNEY STATE OF LOUISIANA COVINGTON, LA KATHRYN W. LANDRY SPEQAL APPEALS COUNSEL BATON ROUGE, LA FREDERICK H. KROENKE, JR. ATTORNEY FOR BATON ROUGE, LA DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAYNE MICHAEL SIMMS BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND McCLENDON, 7J. c E, J C C, S i o if t , f. PETTIGREW, 7. The defendant, Wayne Michael Simms, was charged by amended felony bill of information with failure to register as a sex offender, second offense, a violation of La. R.S. 15: 542. 1. 4. He initially pied not guilty, but later withdrevv his not guifty plea and entered a plea of guilty to the charged offense. The districk court sentenced the defendant to five years at hard iabor withoui the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. He did not appeal in a timely manner, but was granted an outof-time appeal. For the following reasons, we affir.m the defendanYs conviction and sentence. FACTS The facts of the case were not fully developed because the defendant entered a plea of guilty. According to the bill of information and Boykin colloquy, between June 5, 2010, and July 16, 2010, the defendant failed to register as a sex offender. He was previously convicted of failing to register on April 21, 2003. DISCUSSION In his sole assignment of error, the defendant contends that his plea was not freely and voluntarily entered and was in viofatian of La. Code Crim, P. art. 556. 1( A)( 1) because the record does not indicate whether h understood the nature of the charge against him or the mandatory minirnum sentenee. l The defendant argues that when the district court explained the nature of the charge and he mandatory minimum sentence, and then asked if he understood, Hannah Morley, another accused entering a guilty plea that same day, responded for him. When the defendant ent red his guilky plea on February 2, 2012, he was among five other accused persons also entering pleas that day. All six were represented by the Article 556. 1, in pertinent part, states: A. In a felony case, the court shall not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without first addressing the defendant personally in open court and informing him of, and determining that he understands, alf of the following: 1) The nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, f any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law. 2 f their same counsel and were advised Alabama, 395 U. S. 23, nstitucioia! rights ( as set forth in Boykin v. 89 S. Gt, 17 9, 23 . E. 2d ?+ ( 1969)) at the same time. The defendant was informed of hos priY; iege gains e9- a Crir nati n, his eight ko a jury trial, and his rights right and to confront wished to his acc waive s ha d f i d nc sta eJ that he understoad those rs. Lfhem,. The oflaiv3r+ , x oarage transpired between the defendant and the district court judge: The Court: You want to enter a plea in Case 494508, which is failure to register as a sex offender; June 5, 2010 through July 16, 2010; is that correct? Defendant Simms: Yes, sir. The Court: And this has been billed as a second offense failure to register. Is that your understanding? Defendant Simms: Yes, sir. The Court: And [ your] understanding is if I accept your plea, I'm going to sentence you to five ( 5) years with the Department of Corrections, to be served without benefit of probation, parole r suspension of sentence. Is that your understanding? Defendant Simms Yes, sir. Addressing each accused individ aily, the d'estric.k c urt expfained the definition of the charged crimes. Immediately before addressing #he defendant, tfhe court addressed Hannah Morley, who was charged with theft. The court read the definition of theft and the possible sentences under that statute ko Morley. When asked if she understood the definition of the crime and range of sentences, then stated, "[ Morley responded, "[ y] es, sir." The court t] hat brings us to Mr. Simms" and read the definition of failing to register as a sex offender and the penalties for violatiQn of that statute to the defendant. The court asked, "[ sentences on Simms" s] o do you understand the definition af that crime and the range of it?" The record indicates tf ak " Defendant Morley" rather than " Defendant answered, "[ y] es, sir." The court respondea, "[ a] If right," and asked if any of the z Boykin only requires that a defendant be onformed of the three rights enumerated above. Its scope has not been expanded to include advising the defendant of any other rights that he may have, nor of the possible mnsequences of his actions. See State v. Nuccio, 454 So. 2d 93, 104 ( La. 1984). 3 accused had been threatened, coerced, intimidat d, or pressured to enter a plea of guilty in any way. Each of the accused res,ponded that they had not. After a thorough review of t ie recordo it appears that the portion of the record stating that " Defendant Morfey" answer d the q estion presented to the defendant is a typographical error. Morley had just respondeu that she understood the nature of the charge against her ( theft). The court specifically addressed the defendant before reading the nature of the charge against him and the related penalties. The court asked the defendant if he understood, and after receiving a response, immediately moved on to its next inquiry. Moreover, the record contains a " Plea of Guilty and Waiver of Rights" form signed by the district court judge, the defendant, and defense counsel, in open court, on the day the defendant entered his guilty plea. A written form containing a waiver of rights is part of the record, and can be examined to determine the free and knowing nature of the plea. wrote his initials See State to the ne v. Dunn, 390 So. 2d 525, 527 ( La. 1980). provision of The defendant the form stating, " I understand the nature, elements and sentence range of the crime( s) I am charged with committing. By pleading guilty, I will be convicted of these offenses and I understand they can be used to enhance the sentences of future criminal convictions." Our review of the record reveals that the defendant was informed of and understood the nature of the charge against him and the sentence range. Furthermore, even if the district court had failed to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge and the mandatory minimum penalry, that failure would be subject to harmless- error analysis. The proper inquiry is whether the defendant's knowiedge and comprehension of the full and correc[ information would have likely affected his willingness to plead guilty. State v. Guzman, 99- 1528, 99- 1753, pp. 11- 12 ( La. 5/ 16/ 00), 769 So. 2d 1158, 1165- 1166. The defendant's sentence was arrived at as part of a plea bargain to a minimum sentence, and the district court clearly advised the defendant that he would receive a five-year sentence if he pled guilty. The defendant received a sentence 15: 542. 1. 4( A)( 2). considerably The definition below of " the failure 4 statutory to See maximum. register as a sex La. R. S. offender" is straightForward, and the defendant failed to allege that he did not understand the nature of the charge against him. Thus, even if the district courk failed to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge and the mandatory minimum penalty, it wcsuld be harmless and would not render th defendant's plea of guilty invalid. Accordingly, this assignment of error has no merit. REVIEW FOR ERROR Under La. Code Crim. P. art. 920( 2), we are limited in our review to errors discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the evidence. See State v. Price, 2005- 2514, p. 18 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 28/ 06), 952 So. 2d 112, 123 ( en banc), writ denied, 2007-0130 ( La. 2/ 22/ 08), 976 So. 2d 1277. After a careful review of the record, we have found a sentencing error. The defendant was sentenced to five years at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Whoever is found guilty of failure to register as a sex offender, second offense, shall be fined three thousand dollars and imprisoned with hard labor for not less than five nor more than twenty years without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. See La. R.S. 15: 542. 1. 4(A)( 2). The district court failed to impose the mandatory . fine. Accordingly, the defendant's sentence is illegally lenient. However, since the sentence is not inherently prejudicial to the defendant, and neither the State nor the defendant has raised this sentencing issue on appeal, we decline to correct this error. See Price, 2005- 2514 at 21- 22, 952 So.2d at 124- 125. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED. 5 s ar oF c uY ri, a C() U tT QP ARP 4 L FI GIR U[ T 2013 i A 1 a2':7 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS WAYNE MICHAEL SIMMS McCLENDON, 7., cancurs and assigns reasons. While I am concerned about the f ilure f f the tria! court to impose the legislatively mandated fine, given kl e .`tatE', fail re to ob,ject and in the interest of.judicial economy, 1 concur with the majarity opinion.

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.