STATE OF LOUISIANA Vs. GLENNIS WATKINS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2003-KA-1967 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL GLENNIS WATKINS * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 432-778, SECTION “B” Hon. Robert J. Burns, Judge Pro Tempore ****** Judge Dennis R. Bagneris, Sr. ****** (Court composed of Judge Dennis R. Bagneris Sr., Judge Terri F. Love, and Judge David S. Gorbaty) Laura Pavy LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT P.O. Box 750602 New Orleans, LA 701750602 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ARE AFFIRMED In this appeal the defendant argues her sentence is excessive. Finding no merit in the assignment, we affirm the trial court. On August 26, 2002, the State filed a bill of information charging Glennis Watkins with possession of cocaine in violation of La. R.S. 40:967 (C). She pleaded not guilty on September 3, 2002. After trial on November 20, 2002, a six-member jury found her guilty as charged. On March 11, 2003, the State filed a multiple bill charging her as a second offender, and she admitted the charge. She was then sentenced to serve thirty months at hard labor. Her motion to reconsider the sentence was denied, and her motion for an appeal was granted. At trial two police officers testified. Officers Julio Alonzo and Stephen Mortell told the court they were on patrol at the intersection of Erato and Rampart Streets on August 18, 2002, when they noticed the defendant staggering down the middle of the street. They stopped and approached her. The officers noticed that her speech was slurred and she reeked of alcohol; they arrested her for public intoxication. In a search incident to arrest, a glass pipe and a small rock-like substance were found in her pocket. Mr. Nhon Hoang, an expert in analysis of narcotic substances, testified that he tested the crushed rock-like substance and the glass pipe with a white residue; both the rock and the residue proved to be crack cocaine. Mr. Hoang used several tests and in each the substance was positive for cocaine. In a single assignment of error, Ms. Watkins argues that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. She received the minimum sentence under La. R.S. 40:967(C) and La. R.S. 15:529.1. La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.2 (A)(2), which provides for review of a sentence, states: The defendant cannot appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement which was set forth in the record at the time of the plea. The record before us indicates that the defendant signed a Waiver of Constitutional Rights/ Plea of Guilty form to the multiple bill which stated she understood the sentencing range to be between thirty months and ten years and that the sentence she would receive was thirty months in the D.O.C. to be served concurrently with any other sentence imposed. The sentencing transcript indicates that the trial judge imposed the thirty-month sentence in conformity with the guilty plea agreement. For this reason, we find that the defendant is prohibited from seeking review of her sentence. State v. Small, 97-2470 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/19/97), 702 So. 2d 1200, 1203, writ denied, 97-3150 (La. 4/9/98), 717 So. 2d 1143. Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ARE AFFIRMED
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.
