STATE OF LOUISIANA Vs. LIONEL MORRIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2004-KA-0534 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL LIONEL MORRIS * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 427-975, SECTION “B” Honorable Patrick G. Quinlan, Judge ****** Judge Edwin A. Lombard ****** (Court composed of Judge David S. Gorbaty, Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Leon A. Cannizzaro Jr.) Eddie J. Jordan, Jr. District Attorney Battle Bell IV Assistant District Attorney 619 South White Street New Orleans, LA 70119 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE Pamela S. Moran LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT P.O. Box 840030 New Orleans, LA 70184-0030 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT AFFIRME D Defendant appeals a sentence of two-thirds of the maximum term after being convicted as a second offender. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 14, 2002, the State filed a bill of information charging Lionel Morris with simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling in violation of La. R.S. 14:62.2. He entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment on February 22, 2002. After hearings on May 2, 2002, the trial court found probable cause to bind the defendant over for trial and also granted the State’s Prieur motion. The defense announced its intent to file writs, and on May 31, 2002, this Court reversed the trial court’s ruling on the Prieur motion. The State took writs, and on December 19, 2002, the Supreme Court reversed this Court and reinstated the trial court’s ruling. The defendant elected a jury trial, and on January 23, 2003, a twelve-member jury returned the responsive verdict of attempted unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling. On January 30, 2003, the State filed a multiple bill of information charging Mr. Morris as a fourth felony offender, to which he pleaded not guilty. On February 24, 2003, the bill was amended, charging Mr. Morris as a second felony offender. Mr. Morris withdrew his former plea of not guilty, entered a guilty plea to the multiple bill, and was sentenced on that date to serve four years in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The district court denied his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence. In a single assignment of error, the defendant now argues that his four-year sentence is excessive. Under La. R.S. 14:(27)62.3 and La. R.S. 15:529.1, the sentencing range is one and one-half to six years incarceration. The defendant maintains that the trial court gave no reasons for the sentence and thus failed to comply with La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1. LAW AND ANALYSIS Generally, a reviewing court must determine whether the trial judge adequately complied with the sentencing guidelines set forth in La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 and whether the sentence is warranted in light of the particular circumstances of the case. State v. Soco, 441 So.2d. 719, 720. (La. 1983). State v. Quebedeaux, 424 So.2d 1009, 1014 (La. 1982). In State v. Major, 96-1214 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/4/98), 708 So.2d 813, this Court stated: Where the record clearly shows an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed, re-sentencing is unnecessary even when there has not been full compliance with Art. 894.1. State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La. 1982). The reviewing court shall not set aside a sentence for excessiveness if the record supports the sentence imposed. La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.4(D). 96-1214, p.10, 708 So.2d at 819. In State v. Soraparu, 97-1027 (La. 10/13/97), 703 So.2d 608, the Louisiana Supreme Court held: In cases in which the trial court has left a less than fully articulated record indicating that it has considered not only aggravating circumstances but also factors militating for a less severe sentence, a remand for resentencing is appropriate only when “there appear[s] to be a substantial possibility that the defendant’s complaints of an excessive sentence ha [ve] merit.” Id., quoting State v. Wimberly, 414 So.2d 666, 672 (La.1982). See also State v. Coleman, 2002-1000 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/25/02), 828 So.2d 1130, 1141. The defendant is correct that the trial court simply sentenced him to serve four years at hard labor as a second offender without articulating reasons. However, at the beginning of the sentencing hearing the State presented a multiple bill in which Mr. Morris was charged as a fourth felony offender. The State then amended the bill so that he was charged with only one prior offense; that crime is possession of firearm by a convicted felon. Moreover, the same judge who sentenced the defendant heard the testimony at trial and was aware of Mr. Morris’s record indicating a propensity toward obsessive and violent behavior. Given this defendant’s criminal history, it does not appear that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to two-thirds of the maximum term. Accordingly, for reasons stated above, the conviction and sentence are affirmed. 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.
