State v. Mendenhall

Citations: 948 So. 2d 1255; 2007 La. App. LEXIS 158; 2007 WL 403623Docket: No. 40,986-KA

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; February 6, 2007; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The court, on remand from the supreme court, addressed issues related to the appeal of Derrell Mendenhall’s conviction for attempted distribution of marijuana. Mendenhall had pled guilty, acknowledging his intent to distribute to a confidential informant, and received a five-year hard labor sentence. Initially, this court had vacated his conviction due to inadequate advisement of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, but the supreme court reversed that decision and directed the review of remaining issues: the State’s failure to disclose the informant's identity and the potential excessiveness of Mendenhall’s sentence.

Generally, the identity of a confidential informant is protected under Louisiana law to encourage public cooperation with law enforcement. The burden lies with the defendant to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for disclosure, such as the informant's involvement in the crime. Mendenhall did not raise the issue of the informant’s identity prior to his guilty plea, and his only request for disclosure was made pro se after the plea was entered. During the plea hearing, Mendenhall confirmed the facts presented by the prosecutor without contesting the informant’s role.

A guilty plea waives the defendant's right to challenge the state's case and all nonjurisdictional defects before the plea. Because Mendenhall did not ask about the informant's identity before pleading guilty and did not preserve this issue for appeal, he has waived his right to this information. Thus, his confrontation right was not violated due to the lack of knowledge regarding the informant's identity. The court affirmed Mendenhall’s conviction and sentence, finding no merit in the remaining claims.

Defendant contends that his sentence is excessive, arguing that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors like his youth and first felony status. He notes that although the court acknowledged his prior misdemeanor arrests, it did not clarify that he had not been convicted. The Defendant claims he clarified his statement regarding drug sales to a probation officer, asserting that the trial court improperly relied on the Department of Corrections' recommendation that no part of his sentence be suspended. Conversely, the State argues that the Defendant cannot raise these issues on appeal due to his failure to present mitigating factors at sentencing, along with his admission of regularly selling marijuana and his significant prior criminal record, which they assert justify the sentence.

The sentencing range for distribution of marijuana is 5 to 30 years imprisonment and up to a $50,000 fine, while attempted distribution carries a maximum of 15 years and/or a $25,000 fine. A reviewing court assesses sentence excessiveness using a two-pronged test: first, verifying that the trial court acknowledged the criteria in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The trial judge's compliance with this article does not necessitate listing every factor, as long as the record indicates sufficient consideration of the guidelines. The purpose of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 is to articulate a factual basis for the sentence rather than strict compliance, with the court's findings on personal history, offense seriousness, and rehabilitation likelihood being crucial. A sentence is deemed unconstitutional if grossly disproportionate to the offense or unnecessarily punitive, with specific factors not mandated to be weighted in any order. Furthermore, a substantial benefit from a plea bargain can be a legitimate factor in sentencing considerations.

The Defendant, Derrell Mendenhall, entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge of attempted distribution, resulting in a sentence exposure reduction by 50%. During the sentencing hearing, the trial court considered the Defendant's age and status as a first-time felony offender, alongside his eight prior misdemeanor arrests for assault and battery, which were linked to issues with other men associated with his girlfriend. When questioned about a statement in the pre-sentence investigation report regarding drug sales to supplement his income, the Defendant clarified he did not mean it in that context. The trial court highlighted that the Defendant operated a drug business from his home, involving family members, to which he acknowledged making a mistake. His imposed sentence was at the low end of the sentencing range for his crime. The trial court's considerations included the Defendant's age and arrest history, leading to the conclusion that the sentence was neither shocking nor grossly disproportionate. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.