State v. Harris

379 So.3d 152

23-233 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/23)

STATE of Louisiana

v.Brennan A. HARRIS

NO. 23-KA-233

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

December 27, 2023

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, NO. 19-6018, DIVISION "F", HONORABLE MICHAEL P. MENTZ, JUDGE PRESIDING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr., Metairie, Thomas J. Butler, Andrea, F. Long, Douglas E., Rushton, Jr.

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, BRENNAN HARRIS, Kevin V. Boshea, Baton Rouge

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Marc E. Johnson, and Scott U. Schlegel

WICKER, J.

₁Defendant, Brennan Harris, seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas in connection with his convictions for manslaughter, obstruction of justice, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. For the following reasons, we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant’s motion, and we affirm defendant’s convictions. Upon an errors patent review, we find defendant’s sentence for manslaughter is illegally harsh and we amend that sentence to remove the restriction on benefits. In all other respects, we affirm defendant’s sentences.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On December 19, 2019, a Jefferson Parish Grand Jury indicted defendant, Brennan A. Harris, with second degree murder in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 (count one), obstruction of justice in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1 (counts two and three), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (count four). Defendant was arraigned on December 23, 2019, and pled not guilty to all charges.

The matter was set for trial on August 15, 2022. On that date, the State amended the indictment only as to count one to reduce the second degree murder charge and to charge defendant with manslaughter in violation of La. R.S. 14:31. Immediately thereafter, defendant withdrew his pleas of not guilty and pled guilty to the amended manslaughter charge (count one), the obstruction of justice charges (counts two and three), and the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon charge (count four).¹

The following day, August 16, 2022, defendant appeared in court for sentencing and made an oral motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, which the trial ₂court denied. After a conference in chambers, the trial court withdrew its ruling and ordered the matter set for a contradictory hearing.

On October 13, 2022, defendant filed a written motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The court ordered the State to show cause why defendant’s motion should not be granted at a contradictory hearing on December 15, 2022. The hearing was continued on December 15, 2022, and again on January 19, 2023. On February 1, 2023, the court held a contradictory hearing on defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and denied defendant’s motion.

On that same date, the trial court sentenced defendant to twenty years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence on his manslaughter conviction (count one) and to fifteen years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on his possession of a firearm by a convicted felon conviction (count four). As to his obstruction of justice convictions (counts two and three), the trial court ordered, "ten years at hard labor in Department of Corrections[.]"² The court ordered that all sentences run concurrently. This timely appeal followed.

FACTS

Because defendant pleaded guilty, the facts surrounding his convictions were not fully developed at trial. However, the amended indictment alleges that defendant violated La. R.S. 14:31 in that he did commit the manslaughter of victim Cornell Hampton (count one); obstruct justice by tampering with evidence, to wit: the intentional alteration, movement, removal, or addition to the rear bumper of a 2017 Chevrolet Impala Premier vehicle used during the commission of the homicide and the removal of a 9 mm handgun from the scene of the homicide; and have in his possession a firearm, having been previously convicted of the crime of ₃possession of cocaine, in violation of 40:967(C), under case number 14-3013, Division "J" in the 24th Judicial District Court.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Defendant asserts that he did not have the opportunity to discuss the plea offer with his family prior to accepting the plea offer and that, upon reconsideration, he does not feel comfortable accepting a guilty plea for a crime he did not commit. Defendant argues that the motion to withdraw his pleas, filed prior to sentencing, should have been granted because his decision to plead guilty was a "spur of the moment thing" that he agreed to "right before we were about to start picking a jury" on the day of trial.

The record reflects that, on August 15, 2015, defendant and the State entered into a plea agreement. On that date, the trial judge entered into a colloquy with defendant wherein he explained on the record that, pursuant to the plea agreement, the State would agree to reduce defendant’s second degree murder charge to a manslaughter charge, and to dismiss two pending unrelated criminal cases against defendant. Moreover, pursuant to the plea agreement, the State would agree not to file a multiple offender bill against defendant. The transcript of the Boykin³ colloquy with defendant reflects that defendant understood that he was pleading guilty to one count of manslaughter, two counts of obstruction of justice, and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. The transcript further reflects that the tidal court advised defendant of the sentences he would receive for each conviction and that defendant acknowledged and understood that he would be sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for his manslaughter conviction, ten years imprisonment for each obstruction of justice conviction, and fifteen years ₄imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for his felon in possession of a firearm conviction.

During the guilty plea proceeding, the State recited a factual basis for the plea as follows:

If the State proceeded to trial it would have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 10th day of September 2019, the defendant Brennan Harris violated Louisiana Revised Statute 14:31 relative to the manslaughter of Cornell Hampton. Also on that same day violated Louisiana Revised Statute 14:130.1 for obstruction of justice, two counts as well as removing firearm and a tampering with a vehicle and also under 14:95.1, on that same date, possessed a firearm and having a prior conviction for possession of cocaine from 2014 from the 24th Judicial District Court Division J. All these offenses occurred in the Parish of Jefferson.

After the State recited the factual basis, defense counsel stated, "Stipulated." The Court immediately questioned defendant, "Is that correct, Mr. Harris?" to which defendant responded, "Yes, sir."

During the Boykin colloquy with defendant, the trial judge verbally advised defendant of his right to trial by jury, to cross-examine the State’s witnesses, of his privilege against self-incrimination, and of the consequences of waiving those rights by pleading guilty. The trial judge further questioned defendant as to whether he had been threatened or coerced into entering into the plea and if he had been satisfied with his attorney’s representation in the case. The defendant verbally acknowledged his understanding of those rights and consequences. On the written waiver of rights form, defendant further placed his initials next to each individual written advisal of his rights, including his right to jury trial, his right to confrontation, and his privilege against self-incrimination, as required by Boykin, and placed his signature at the end of the form indicating that he understood that he was waiving these rights. Defendant verbally acknowledged at the guilty plea hearing that his retained counsel, who also signed the form, had reviewed. and explained the waiver of rights form to him and that he understood the ₅consequences of pleading guilty. The guilty plea form also stated the anticipated sentences and the record reflects that defendant was sentenced in accordance with the sentences stated on the guilty plea form.

On August 16, 2016, the following day, defendant appeared for sentencing. At the August 16, 2016 hearing, defendant orally moved for a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Prior to sentencing, defendant made the following statement to the Court:

I made a decision on yesterday about taken the time, but I talked about [sic] my family and they felt like that was a bad decision. And I feel like it was a bad decision because I’m taking time on a crime that I didn’t commit. And I feel like this is an injustice to me and the family, because I don’t want these people to believe, I was the one that killed the love, and I took the time because I was scared of the sentence that I could possibly get if I’m found guilty, but I talked to my wife and you know it was a split. I made a decision on my own without talking to them. And they don’t think it was a good idea. And I don’t think it was a good idea neither. And I was wondering if I could take it back resume going on with the trial.

The trial court construed defendant’s statement as a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and set the matter for a contradictory hearing.⁴ After multiple continuances, the trial court conducted a contradictory hearing on February 1, 2023. At the hearing, defense counsel argued that La. C.Cr.P. art. 559⁵ permits a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea at any time before sentencing. Defendant acknowledged that he voluntarily entered into the plea but informed the court that his decision to...