State v. Bazile

Citations: 757 So. 2d 851; 2000 WL 320664Docket: 99-KA-1821

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; March 14, 2000; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Bryan K. Bazile was charged on December 10, 1998, with possession of heroin and cocaine. He pleaded not guilty at his arraignment on December 15, 1998. A probable cause hearing on January 14, 1999, resulted in the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, and the trial was initially set for February 23, 1999, later rescheduled to March 17, 1999, at the defense's request. After a jury trial, Bazile was found guilty on both counts and sentenced on March 31, 1999, to concurrent terms of four years for heroin possession and two years for cocaine possession, with credit for time served. The State subsequently filed a multiple bill citing Bazile's prior felony convictions for distribution of crack cocaine and attempted possession of a firearm. Although Bazile denied being the same individual as in the prior cases, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to establish his identity as a multiple offender. Bazile ultimately pled guilty to the multiple bill and received a life sentence as a triple offender under La. R.S. 15:529.1, with the previous sentence vacated.

Officer Travis McCabe testified about an incident on October 24, 1998, when he and other officers were conducting proactive patrols in response to drug activity in the area of St. Ann Street. McCabe observed Bazile attempting to flag down a vehicle, which he interpreted as a typical behavior of drug traffickers. Upon noticing the police presence, Bazile abruptly ceased his actions and began to walk away, placing his hand in his pocket and furtively looking over his shoulder, which raised the officer's suspicions regarding Bazile's intent.

Officer McCabe testified that Bazile's furtive behavior led to the officers' suspicion. Officer Keller approached Bazile, who, upon seeing the officers, removed his left hand from his pocket, causing an object to fall to the sidewalk. Officer McCabe observed this and concluded Bazile had discarded something he wanted to hide. Officer Keller retrieved a plastic bag containing crack cocaine. After informing Bazile of his rights, the officers arrested him. A subsequent search revealed a foil packet believed to contain heroin. At the time of arrest, Bazile was combative and refused to provide identification. 

Officer McCabe was the sole witness at the Suppression Motion Hearing, where he explained that narcotics dealers typically carry only one piece of contraband to avoid detection and robbery. His trial testimony mirrored that given at the hearing. Officer Warren Keller corroborated McCabe's account, confirming that they only arrested Bazile on October 24, 1998, and found no additional contraband in the vicinity. The recovered substances tested positive for crack cocaine and heroin.

The defense called Thomas Taylor, who stated he was with Bazile that night and claimed the police arrested Bazile due to drugs found in an abandoned vehicle nearby. He asserted that the police lacked proper cause for their actions and did not find drugs on Bazile. Officer Michael Crawford testified in rebuttal, denying Taylor's claims and stating that his unit did not detain or question anyone that night.

At a multiple bill hearing, the trial judge vacated the original sentence and imposed a life sentence without the possibility of parole, probation, or suspension, as mandated for a triple offender under the law. The judge expressed regret over the lack of discretion due to Bazile's extensive criminal history, which included offenses involving a weapon and drug possession. He emphasized that the law required this sentence as a result of Bazile's convictions.

On 24 May 1993, a bill of information was filed against Bazile for distribution of crack cocaine, with a guilty plea entered on 23 August 1993. Alongside this, an arrest register from 24 May 1993 documented charges for distribution of crack cocaine, resisting arrest, and battery on a police officer, with subsequent guilty pleas entered for the latter charges on 22 July 1993. Additional records indicate prior arrests and charges related to distribution of crack cocaine dating back to December 1990 and January 1991, with guilty pleas recorded in June 1991. 

Errors patent review revealed that the State improperly joined charges in the bill of information that required different trial modalities; however, the charges—possession of heroin and possession of cocaine—were deemed of similar character and based on the same act of simultaneous possession of controlled substances. Thus, the joining of offenses was valid. The trial was conducted with a twelve-person jury, which was appropriate under the circumstances.

The review also highlighted that the district court did not specify which sentence was vacated in the multiple bill sentencing, yet it was clear that Bazile was resentenced to life imprisonment as a third offender only on the heroin charge. Bazile raised a concern about not receiving credit for time served, which is now automatically granted under La. C.Cr. P. art. 880 due to a 1997 legislative amendment. Ultimately, the review concluded there were no patent errors in the case.

The trial court's denial of Bazile's motion to suppress evidence was deemed erroneous. Bazile contended that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop, which is defined under La.C.Cr. P. art. 215.1 as a threshold that is less than probable cause for an arrest. The court referenced previous rulings emphasizing that an investigatory stop requires specific, articulable facts indicating criminal activity. In Bazile's case, the officers had reasonable suspicion based on citizen complaints of drug activity in the area, Bazile's actions attempting to flag down a vehicle, and his subsequent behavior of walking away upon seeing police units. This justified their stop and the subsequent admission of evidence, including cocaine and heroin.

Regarding the second assignment of error, Bazile argued that his life sentence was constitutionally excessive. He raised concerns about the length of his sentence after sentencing and in a follow-up letter, preserving the issue for appellate review. Under La. R.S. 15:529.1 A(1)(b)(ii), a mandatory life sentence applies if the offenses meet specific criteria. Both Bazile’s current and prior offenses qualified him as a triple offender, necessitating the life sentence. He cited State v. Dorthey, arguing that the trial court should have exercised discretion to find the sentence excessively harsh. The appellate court assesses sentences for constitutional excessiveness based on whether they contribute to the goals of punishment and their proportionality to the crime.

Courts can declare a sentence excessive even if it is within statutory limits, as established in State v. Sepulvado. The trial court may reduce a mandatory minimum sentence under the multiple offender statute if deemed constitutionally excessive, per State v. Pollard. The Habitual Offender Law is considered constitutional, and its minimum sentences for multiple offenders are presumed constitutional according to State v. Johnson. To challenge this presumption, a defendant must convincingly demonstrate exceptional circumstances indicating that the legislative sentencing guidelines do not appropriately reflect the offender's culpability, the offense's severity, or the case's specifics, as noted in State v. Young.

In the case of Bazile, the trial court suggested it might have imposed a lesser sentence if not for the mandatory life sentence. Bazile's criminal history includes multiple convictions for drug distribution, firearm possession, and resisting arrest. Despite his claims of wanting to change and care for his daughters, the court found no evidence of efforts to rehabilitate or gain skills for a productive life. Consequently, Bazile's history as a career drug dealer who poses a danger aligns with the goals of the multiple offender statute. As a result, his case did not warrant a departure from the mandatory life sentence, and the convictions and sentences were affirmed.