State v. Baker

Citations: 154 So. 3d 561; 2014 La. App. LEXIS 2204; 2014 WL 4656496Docket: No. 2014 KA 0222

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; September 19, 2014; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

G’Quan Baker faced charges from a grand jury indictment for three counts of second degree murder and one count of attempted second degree murder. After pleading not guilty, a sanity commission deemed him competent for trial. A motion to quash the indictment was filed, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, but the trial court denied it. Baker was convicted on all counts after a jury trial. His motion to stay sentencing based on Miller was previously ruled erroneous by the court, leading to a remand for a proper sentencing hearing. He received life sentences for the murder counts, eligible for parole after thirty-five years, and a fifteen-year sentence for attempted murder, all running concurrently. Baker has appealed, citing one counseled and three pro se assignments of error, but his convictions and sentences were affirmed.

On June 29, 2011, Angela Jarvis and her friend Ashley London were targeted while returning to their apartment. An SUV followed them, and shots were fired, fatally wounding Ashley. Angela observed the shooter, later identified as Baker, but was initially unable to identify him in photographic lineups. A witness, Dedrick Watson, corroborated the shooting details but could not identify the shooter. Subsequently, detectives discovered two more victims, Jessica Parker and Kevin Bowie, dead from gunshot wounds in a vehicle on July 29, 2011.

Each victim, Jessica and Kevin, was shot multiple times, with Jessica sustaining six shots and Kevin eleven. Investigators found nine spent casings in a white Ford Explorer, primarily of 9mm caliber. Detective Elvin Howard was the lead investigator and identified the defendant as a suspect after interviewing a potential witness, Robin Johnson. A tip led to the recovery of a Ruger P85 9mm pistol, which was linked to the defendant and a juvenile named Darion Burkes. The defendant was taken into custody prior to a random drug test at a juvenile detention center. Robin Johnson, a friend of the defendant, reported that he and his brother dropped her off and returned later with firearms. She recalled the defendant admitting to killing Kevin Bowie after administering Xanax. Additionally, a photographic lineup helped identify the defendant as the shooter and Preston Nelson as the driver, leading to their arrest.

In his sole counseled assignment of error, the defendant argues that the trial court wrongly denied his motion to quash the indictment, referencing the Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which invalidated mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles. The ruling emphasizes that while life sentences are not outright prohibited for juvenile offenders, courts must consider youth and mitigating factors before imposing severe penalties. This aligns with the precedent set in Graham v. Florida, which requires states to offer some opportunity for release based on maturity and rehabilitation, highlighting the need to avoid disproportionate punishment based on youth.

The Court in Miller clarified that while the Graham decision was adequate to resolve the case, it did not address the argument for a categorical ban on life without parole for juveniles. It emphasized that trial courts must consider the unique characteristics of children when sentencing, particularly in homicide cases, preventing irrevocable life sentences without parole. Following this ruling, Louisiana enacted laws (LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 878.1 and LSA-R.S. 15:574.4(E)) establishing parole eligibility guidelines for juveniles convicted of serious crimes. Despite the defendant's claims, Miller does not invalidate LSA-R.S. 14:30.1 or undermine the district court's jurisdiction over juvenile offenders. The ruling strictly pertains to sentencing, not the procedures leading to conviction. Historical cases from the Louisiana Supreme Court confirm that invalidating a penalty provision does not render the entire statute unconstitutional, allowing for continued prosecution of juveniles in district court. Thus, even if Miller affects LSA-R.S. 14:30.1, it does not prevent the State from prosecuting the defendant under the Louisiana Children’s Code.

The Miller Court outlined critical factors for sentencing juvenile defendants, emphasizing the consideration of the defendant's chronological age, immaturity, family environment, offense circumstances, potential for lesser charges due to youth-related incompetencies, and rehabilitation possibilities. On remand, the trial court acknowledged its duty to follow Miller's guidance and reviewed various Louisiana laws, including sentencing factors and guidelines. The court considered the defendant's age, childhood and family circumstances, mental health evidence, victim testimonies, and expert opinions, ultimately determining that the defendant, G’Quan Baker, had severe issues stemming from his upbringing and health conditions. The court imposed a life sentence at hard labor for counts 1, 3, and 4, with eligibility for parole after 35 years, and a concurrent 15-year sentence for count 2 without parole, probation, or suspension. The trial court affirmed its compliance with Miller and relevant Louisiana statutes, concluding that the assignment of error relating to sentencing lacked merit.

The defendant's first pro se assignment of error contends he was denied proper judicial review due to the absence of the jury voir dire transcript in the record, which he argues violates Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 19. He notes that minute entries show challenges for cause were denied without explanation in the existing record. Criminal defendants are entitled to an appeal based on a complete record, as stipulated in Louisiana law. Following the defendant's initial brief, the appellate court ordered the inclusion of the missing voir dire transcript. After this supplementation, the assignment became moot. In his supplemental brief, the defendant claimed that jury verdict sheets were also missing; however, these sheets are included in the record. Additionally, he argued that a specific voir dire transcript for a potential juror was absent, but this was addressed in the supplemental transcript. Consequently, this assignment of error was deemed moot or unfounded.

In the second pro se assignment of error, the defendant asserts that the trial court did not determine his competence to stand trial, thereby lacking jurisdiction. However, the record, including a May 7, 2012 minute entry, confirms a sanity hearing occurred, with both parties agreeing to the doctor's report, which found the defendant competent. Thus, this assignment is without merit.

In the third pro se assignment of error, the defendant claims ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not appealing based on a complete record and failing to raise his first two assignments. Ineffective assistance claims are typically addressed in post-conviction proceedings unless the record allows resolution on appeal. Such claims are evaluated under the Strickland v. Washington two-pronged test.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate two key elements: first, that the attorney’s performance was deficient to the point of not functioning as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment; and second, that this deficiency caused actual prejudice, depriving the defendant of a fair trial. The defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel's errors, the trial outcome would have been different. An inadequate showing on either component negates the need to address the other. Allegations of deficiencies related to preparation and strategy necessitate an evidentiary hearing and cannot be reviewed on appeal. Moreover, if a substantive issue that an attorney failed to raise lacks merit, the claim of ineffective assistance for not raising that issue also lacks merit. Consequently, the claim of error is deemed without merit or not subject to appellate review. 

The court also reviewed the record for errors under LSA-C.Cr. P. art. 920(2), which allows for a review limited to errors evident from the pleadings and proceedings without examining evidence. No reversible errors were found. The defendant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed. Notably, the defendant was sixteen at the crime's commission and had previously filed a motion to waive a jury trial, although there was no signed order or further action regarding this motion. The defendant was ultimately tried by a jury, and there was an in-court identification linking him to the crime. Louisiana law mandates life imprisonment for second-degree murder, and the voir dire transcript is available to the defendant upon request, subject to compliance with specific procedural requirements.