State v. Brown

Citations: 164 So. 3d 395; 14 La.App. 3 Cir. 1218; 2015 La. App. LEXIS 904; 2015 WL 2088893Docket: No. KA 14-1218

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 6, 2015; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Christopher J. Brown was charged with attempted forcible rape of L.S. on December 22, 2011, and pleaded not guilty at his arraignment on January 19, 2012. Following a motion for a sanity evaluation, the court found him competent to stand trial. The trial began on February 11, 2014, resulting in a guilty verdict the next day. On July 31, 2014, he was initially sentenced to twenty years at hard labor, with ten years suspended and probation conditions. However, on August 11, 2014, the court resentenced him to fifteen years at hard labor without parole, probation, or suspension, correcting an error since attempted forcible rape is classified as a crime of violence not eligible for suspended sentences or probation. Brown subsequently appealed, but his conviction and sentence were affirmed.

During the trial, the victim, a thirteen-year-old girl, testified about the attack in a library restroom, detailing how she was confronted and physically restrained by a young man, later identified as Defendant. She managed to escape after kicking him and reported the incident to Mr. Edward Poche, a library patron, who intervened as the Defendant attempted to leave. Poche confirmed L.S.'s distress and identified the Defendant during the trial. Cross-examinations revealed that L.S. was not sexually assaulted, nor was she injured during the attack. Further testimony was provided by library employee Ms. Lela Thibodeaux regarding the incident.

A witness testified she was in the back of the library when she heard a yell and later learned about the incident from her supervisor's phone call to the police. She saw the Defendant at the computers before the incident and noted that the victim, L.S., was crying but had no visible injuries. The Defendant remained at the library until police arrived. Another library employee, Ms. Linda Leonard, testified that she heard a commotion and saw L.S., Mr. Poche, and the Defendant leaving the restroom area, after which she called the police. Officer Jacob Primeaux, the responding officer, confirmed he arrested the Defendant and found an unopened condom in his pocket. He observed that Defendant's pants were unzipped when booking him into jail, about two to three minutes after leaving the library. Officer Seth Comeaux testified that he read Defendant his Miranda rights, which Defendant understood and waived, agreeing to speak without an attorney. During questioning, Defendant claimed he went into the restroom to kiss L.S., who screamed and ran away. Officer Comeaux later conducted an unrecorded interview where Defendant stated he wanted to have sex with L.S. and felt he needed to be in control of the situation. The State rested its case, and the Defendant chose not to testify or call witnesses. The court reviewed the record for errors patent and found one potential error that was deemed without merit. The Defendant's second assignment of error contested the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.

The assignment of error focuses on the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the defendant's conviction for attempted forcible rape. The appellate court's review is guided by established legal standards, specifically whether any rational fact-finder could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as outlined in *Jackson v. Virginia*. The court emphasizes that it will not reevaluate credibility determinations made by the jury, which is responsible for weighing witness credibility.

To affirm a conviction, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant had the specific intent to commit the crime, which requires proof that the defendant desired to cause the criminal consequences and took actions toward that goal. In the context of attempted forcible rape, the defendant must have actively sought to prevent the victim from resisting through force or threats. 

In this case, evidence presented included the defendant's admission to an officer that he entered the restroom intending to engage in sexual activity with the victim, alongside testimonies indicating he physically restrained her and attempted to silence her cries for help. The jury concluded that the defendant possessed the necessary specific intent and took actions that supported his goal, thereby upholding the conviction for attempted forcible rape. The defendant's argument that his actions did not align with those of an attempted rapist was dismissed as lacking merit.

The victim successfully defended herself against an attempted rape by the Defendant, escaping the restroom and seeking help. The evidence supports the conclusion that the Defendant had the specific intent to forcibly rape the victim and took actions toward that goal. The court reaffirmed that the victim's resistance does not negate the Defendant's intent to commit non-consensual sexual intercourse. 

In a separate issue, the Defendant challenged the legality of his sentence imposed during resentencing. He argued that the trial court altered his sentence without justifiable reasons based on his conduct after the original sentencing. Initially, on July 31, 2014, the trial court sentenced him to twenty years at hard labor, suspending ten years and imposing probation conditions. However, after being informed by the Department of Corrections that this sentence was illegal, the court resentenced him on August 11, 2014, to fifteen years at hard labor without the possibility of probation, parole, or suspension. 

The court noted that Louisiana law prohibits the suspension of sentences for crimes of violence, rendering the original sentence illegal. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 882(A) allows for correction of illegal sentences, which the court exercised by imposing a legal sentence. The Defendant contended that his original sentence should be reinstated, but the court clarified that the resentencing was appropriate given the illegal nature of the prior sentence.

If the original sentencing judge intended for the defendant to serve their term without parole, resentencing to the same term without parole is appropriate. If the intent was to allow for parole eligibility, the resentencing judge may impose a lesser term without parole to align with that intent. If the original intent is unclear, the resentencing judge must determine an appropriate sentence, not exceeding the original term, to be served without parole. 

The document references several cases affirming that correcting an illegal sentence does not violate constitutional rights, even if the new sentence is more severe, unless there is evidence of vindictiveness or retaliatory motivation. Specifically, due process is not violated by increased punishment post-appeal as long as it doesn't involve actual retaliatory intent. 

In the case at hand, the trial court clarified its original intent for the defendant’s release after part of a twenty-year sentence but, due to legal constraints, resentenced the defendant to a lower term of fifteen years without the possibility of parole, probation, or suspension. This was consistent with both Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure and previous rulings. The supreme court’s precedent also supports that correcting an illegal sentence does not infringe on a defendant’s rights absent vindictiveness. Therefore, the defendant's claims are dismissed, and the conviction and sentence are affirmed. The victim's identity is protected in accordance with state law.