State v. Hensley

Citations: 537 So. 2d 857; 1989 WL 4648Docket: 88-KA-495

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 17, 1989; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Donald Hensley appeals his conviction for simple robbery under LSA-R.S. 14:65 and as a second felony offender under LSA-R.S. 15:529.1, receiving a 14-year hard labor sentence. The incident occurred on May 29, 1987, when Julia Miles experienced a flat tire on the Westbank Expressway. Hensley offered assistance but, upon discovering her spare tire was also flat, brandished a gun and forced her out of her car, subsequently stealing it. Later that day, Hensley attempted to cash stolen payroll checks made out to Miles at Schnell's Restaurant. After an employee became suspicious, authorities were contacted, leading to Hensley's arrest. He initially pleaded not guilty to armed robbery but was convicted of simple robbery after a jury trial. Hensley's motion to suppress the victim's identification was partially granted; the court allowed in-court identification but deemed the photographic lineup suggestive. Following his conviction, Hensley challenged the habitual offender ruling, asserting improper Boykinization of prior felony convictions. The court quashed one conviction's evidence but upheld another, recognizing him as a second felony offender. Hensley appeals, arguing the trial court erred in its handling of the identification suppression motion.

The defendant contends that the victim's identification of him during the motion hearing was improperly influenced by a photographic lineup, asserting that the State did not present testimony from the police officers involved or all the photographs shown to the victim. This argument is deemed without merit. Deputy James Broadwater testified that the initial set of photographs presented to the victim did not include the defendant's image but did include Mark Smith's, whom the victim recognized. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Manson v. Brathwaite outlines five factors to assess the admissibility of an in-court identification: opportunity to view the criminal, degree of attention, accuracy of prior descriptions, level of uncertainty during confrontation, and time elapsed between the crime and confrontation. The defendant claims the victim had limited viewing conditions due to the time and setting of the crime, but the victim testified that she had a clear view of the defendant for 10-15 minutes and could see him well enough to identify him positively in court. Despite her failure to identify him in the photographic lineups, the court finds her in-court identification reliable and convincing, noting that prior identifications impact the weight of testimony rather than its admissibility.

In a second assignment of error, the defendant challenges the trial court's classification of him as a multiple offender under R.S. 15:529.1, arguing that his prior felony conviction from a guilty plea on an aggravated burglary charge lacked a proper waiver of constitutional rights as mandated by Boykin v. Alabama. He claims the waiver-of-rights form and colloquy presented do not demonstrate he was informed of his right to remain silent at trial, asserting that the failure to explicitly state this renders the guilty plea invalid. He cites three Louisiana cases to support his position that a guilty plea is invalid without clear advisement of the privilege against self-incrimination at trial.

In State v. Yarbrough, 418 So.2d 503 (La.1982), the Supreme Court emphasized that a defendant's understanding of their rights should be assessed through a holistic view of the record, moving away from strict procedural adherence. In State v. Terrase, 468 So.2d 729 (La. App. 5 Cir.1985), the court validated a similar colloquy, noting that the trial judge ensured the defendant was informed of the Boykin rights before accepting a guilty plea. The judge confirmed that the defendant and their attorney were satisfied with the defendant's understanding of the rights and consequences. In the current case, the trial judge conducted a thorough inquiry, explaining the Boykin rights and affirming the defendant's comprehension before accepting the plea, leading to the conclusion that there was no merit to the assignment of error regarding the plea's validity.

However, discrepancies were noted between the sentencing transcript and the minute entry and commitment. Specifically, the defendant was not credited for time served at the sentencing hearing despite such credit being documented in the minute entry and commitment. Although this was deemed a minor issue since the minute entry complied with legal requirements, a significant discrepancy existed regarding the judge's statement that the sentence would be served without probation or suspension, which was not reflected in the minute entry. Following State v. Lynch, 441 So.2d 732 (La.1983), the transcript prevails over the minute entry in cases of inconsistency. Therefore, the court ordered the minute entry and commitment to be corrected to indicate that the sentence is to be served without benefit of probation or suspension. The conviction and sentence were affirmed, contingent upon these corrections.