State v. Boudreaux

Citations: 782 So. 2d 1194; 2001 WL 323861Docket: 00-1467

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; April 4, 2001; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Chad Louis Boudreaux was convicted of multiple offenses: two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of armed robbery, and one count of first degree robbery, receiving sentences of thirty years for each burglary, ninety-nine years for armed robbery, and forty years for first degree robbery, all to run consecutively and without the possibility of parole, probation, or suspension. The case arose from three incidents. 

The first incident on March 27, 1997, involved Boudreaux forcibly entering Herman Kesel's home after identifying himself falsely as a police detective. He assaulted Kesel, demanding money and leaving with cash after the victim complied. Kesel positively identified Boudreaux in court, and his wife corroborated the account, while Boudreaux's girlfriend testified that he used items belonging to his deceased father during the crime.

The second incident occurred on April 2, 1997, involving two minors caring for their grandmother. Boudreaux approached them, pretending to be a bounty hunter searching for their mother. This incident led to the charges of aggravated burglary and armed robbery. The details of this incident are not fully recounted in the excerpt but contributed to the overall charges against Boudreaux. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences.

P.G. reported that Defendant spoke with him for five minutes before forcibly entering their grandmother's home, brandishing a knife, ordering them to the floor, and demanding money. He took cash from their grandmother's purse and left. S.G. and P.G. identified a shirt and knife later presented by police as belonging to Defendant and positively identified him in a photographic lineup and at trial. P.G. also noted seeing Defendant's old pickup truck parked outside with a female inside while the robbery occurred. Officer James Granger, who investigated the incident on April 2, 1997, broadcasted a description of the suspect shortly after 7:00 p.m. He later found a blue shirt in Defendant's truck and a knife in a gas station trash can, based on information from Fournet, who had been in the truck with Defendant. Fournet testified she had previous acquaintance with the victims and was present during the robbery. A second robbery incident occurred at Richard Hughes' home shortly before 8:00 p.m. on the same day, where Defendant demanded Hughes' wallet while threatening him with a weapon he implied was concealed under his shirt. Hughes identified Defendant in a photographic lineup and at trial. Fournet later returned Hughes' wallet, which she retrieved after Defendant discarded it. 

The review of the case revealed two patent errors. First, the sentencing minutes incorrectly reflected a ninety-nine-year sentence for armed robbery, while the transcript indicated it was to be served without the possibility of parole, probation, or suspension. The court ordered a remand to correct these records. Second, Defendant was not informed of the two-year limit for filing postconviction relief, as mandated by La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.8. The trial court is directed to provide written notice of this provision to Defendant within ten days of the opinion's issuance and to file proof of this notification in the record.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred by interrupting defense counsel and making sua sponte objections, which he claims violate La. Code Crim. P. art. 772, prohibiting certain comments in front of the jury. The specific interruptions included the trial judge questioning the relevancy of inquiries regarding a police officer's training and the relevance of the witness's prior sentence. The judge deemed several defense questions as argumentative and stated that some were "asked and answered," as well as questioning the relevance of a line of questioning about crack cocaine and vehicle rental. Notably, Defendant did not object to these comments during the trial, which would typically waive the right to address them on appeal. Even if Defendant had objected, the court found that the remarks were not meritless and did not violate Article 772, as they were neither inflammatory nor prejudicial. The court distinguished this case from State v. Colligan, where the trial court's comments were deemed a clear violation, and noted similarities to State v. Felde, where the court found that limiting irrelevant questions did not imply guilt or innocence to the jury.

The trial court's comments during the proceedings, while potentially incorrect or improper, did not constitute commentary on the evidence or witness testimony and focused on maintaining order rather than addressing the Defendant's guilt or innocence. The assignment of error regarding the failure to require the probation officer to produce electronic monitoring records is unsubstantiated. The Defendant claimed these records would prove he was at home during the alleged offenses, but the record indicates that the probation officer, Robert Baudoin, was not required to bring the records to trial, nor is there evidence that he refused to do so. Baudoin testified he could retrieve the records quickly with a court order, yet there is no indication that the Defendant requested their production. Furthermore, Baudoin's testimony revealed frequent curfew violations and specific incidents that do not support the Defendant's claims regarding his alibi. The relevance of curfew violations to the charged events was diminished since the incidents occurred before curfew enforcement began. 

In terms of sentencing, the Defendant contends that the maximum sentences imposed are excessive and that they should be served concurrently rather than consecutively. The trial court imposed a total of 199 years of hard labor, stating it considered the relevant sentencing guidelines. The Defendant has not clearly articulated any specific errors by the trial court regarding the sentence, leading to the conclusion that this assignment of error is also without merit.

The Court found the evidence against Mr. Boudreaux compelling, establishing his identity as the perpetrator in multiple incidents involving elderly victims. Witnesses, including the victims, positively identified him, and the Court emphasized the severity of his actions, which included using a police badge to gain entry, brandishing a gun, and committing acts of violence and robbery. The Court acknowledged the potential for rehabilitation in many cases but deemed Mr. Boudreaux's situation an exception due to his extensive criminal history spanning over twenty years. This history included numerous charges, many of which were dismissed, and several convictions for forgery and burglary. The Court noted that previous leniency had failed to reform him, leading to the conclusion that the appropriate response was to permanently remove him from society. The trial court retains broad discretion in sentencing, and a sentence within statutory limits is not considered excessive unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion. The document references precedents that affirm the Court's authority in imposing sentences and outlines the criteria for determining whether a sentence is excessive, focusing on proportionality and the contributions to penal goals.

The trial court has broad discretion in sentencing, with sentences within statutory limits not considered excessive unless there is clear abuse of discretion. The court must weigh sentencing guidelines and provide a factual basis for the sentence, as mandated by La. Code Crim. P. art. 894.1. While the court need not list every item from the checklist, the record must demonstrate adequate consideration of the guidelines. Even if not fully compliant with article 894.1, remand is unnecessary if the record shows a sufficient basis for the sentence. In this case, the trial court discussed article 894.1 and justified the maximum sentences based on the nature of the crimes and the defendant's criminal history, which indicated he was among the worst offenders. The sentences were found to be proportionate to the severity of the crimes, contributing to acceptable penal goals, and therefore not unconstitutionally excessive. The defendant's argument against consecutive sentences was addressed, noting that while Louisiana law typically favors concurrent sentences, the trial court has discretion to impose consecutive sentences based on factors such as the defendant's criminal history and the danger posed to the community. The specifics of the case, including the violent nature of the assault and the defendant's flight from law enforcement, justified the imposition of consecutive sentences.

Appellate review of a sentence focuses on whether the trial court abused its discretion, rather than assessing if a different sentence would have been more appropriate. A trial court's discretion is deemed abused only if it imposes excessive punishment that is disproportionate to the offense, as outlined in the Louisiana Constitution. In this case, three of the four offenses were distinct, occurring at different times, locations, and involving different victims, which negates the relevance of concurrent sentencing for these offenses. The trial court's consideration of the defendant's criminal history, the violent nature of the crimes, and the threat posed to society justified the imposition of consecutive maximum sentences. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decisions, affirming the convictions and sentences, while remanding the case for the trial court to amend documentation to reflect that the armed robbery sentence is to be served without the possibility of probation, parole, or suspension. The trial court is also instructed to notify the defendant of specific legal provisions within ten days and document this in the case record.