State v. O'Neal

381 So.3d 273

55,559 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/28/24)

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee

v.Cedric Charles O’NEAL, Appellant

No. 55,559-KA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment Rendered February 28, 2024

Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana, Trial Court No. 198,597, Honorable Ramona L. Emanuel, Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT By: Peggy J. Sullivan, Monroe, Counsel for Appellant

CEDRIC CHARLES O’NEAL, Pro Se

JAMES E. STEWART, SR., District Attorney, TOMMY JAN JOHNSON, ALEXANDRA L. PORUBSKY, Assistant District Attorneys, Counsel for Appellee

Before STEPHENS, MARCOTTE, and ELLENDER, JJ.

MARCOTTE, J.

₁This appeal arises from the First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo, the Honorable Ramona Emanuel presiding. In 1999, defendant Cedric Charles O’Neal was convicted of vehicular homicide, subsequently adjudicated a third-felony habitual offender, and sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefits. Following two appeals, his conviction and sentence were affirmed. In 2018, O’Neal sought resentencing under La. R.S. 15:308 and State ex rel. Esteen v. State, 16-0949 (La. 1/30/18), 239 So. 3d 233. O’Neal was granted relief, adjudicated a second-felony offender, and resentenced to 30 years at hard labor, with one year to be served without benefits. The trial court did not vacate his third-felony offender adjudication and life sentence. He appealed; his sentence as a second-felony offender was vacated and the case remanded to the trial court for determination of his habitual offender status and for resentencing.

At his resentencing hearing, the trial court orally resentenced O’Neal as a third-felony offender to 30 years at hard labor without the benefits of probation or suspension of sentence and with one year of his sentence to be served without the benefit of parole. The trial court did not vacate his life sentence or his second-felony offender adjudication. Defendant appealed. A few weeks later, the trial court issued a written ruling determining that O’Neal was a second-felony habitual offender and sentenced him to 30 years at hard labor without the benefits of probation or suspension of sentence.

₂FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The following is taken from O’Neal’s third appeal, State v. O’Neal, 54,581 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/29/22), 342 So. 3d 433 ("State v. O’Neal III"), which states:

On October 17, 1998, Cedric Charles O’Neal was tailgating outside a football game at the Fairgrounds Stadium in Shreveport, Louisiana. He was drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana before getting into a friend’s car to leave the tailgate to get something to eat. While he was driving, the car in front of him stopped to let pedestrians from the game cross Greenwood Road, and O’Neal swerved around the car at a high rate of speed. O’Neal drove into the crowd of pedestrians and clipped Sandra Lewis, knocking her back toward the curb. She survived. O’Neal hit Robin Barrett ("Barrett") with the vehicle head-on, and she was tragically killed as a result. O’Neal was arrested and registered .112% on a Breathalyzer administered at the time, which was above the legal limit. A later blood test revealed a blood alcohol content of .11%, and a urine test also revealed the presence of marijuana in his body.

. .

O’Neal was charged by bill of information on December 14, 1998, with the vehicular homicide of Robin Barrett in violation of La. R.S. 14:32.1. After a jury trial, O’Neal was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor after being adjudicated as a third-felony offender.

The predicate offenses for his third-felony offender adjudication were discussed in O’Neal’s first appeal, State v. O’Neal, 34,-814 (La. App. 2 Cir. 10/12/01), 795 So. 2d 1292, writ denied, 01-3207 (La. 11/1/02), 828 So. 2d 564 ("State v. O’Neal I"). They consisted of (1) possession of a Schedule II, cocaine, to which he pled guilty on October 25, 1993; and (2) simple burglary, to which he pled guilty in 1994. In his first appeal, this court affirmed his conviction and his adjudication as a third-felony offender but vacated his sentence and remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing as a result of constitutional issues raised in that appeal. On remand, he was again sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment as a ₃third-felony offender, which O’Neal appealed. The life imprisonment sentence was later affirmed by this court in his second appeal, State v. O'Neal, 36,431 (La. App. 2 Cir. 10/23/02), 830 So. 2d 408 ("State v. O’Neal II").

In 2018, O’Neal filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing he was entitled to the more lenient sentencing considerations passed by the legislature in 2001 and made retroactive in 2006 with the enactment of La. R.S. 15:308. On August 22, 2019, the trial court granted O’Neal’s motion to correct an illegal sentence stating that he should have been adjudicated a second-felony offender, because one of his predicate offenses, possession of a Schedule II, cocaine, was dismissed in 1993. The trial court stated that it attached the minutes showing the dismissal to its ruling. The trial court said that the applicable range for his sentence was 20 to 60 years.

On January 22, 2021, a resentencing hearing was held, where the trial court resentenced O’Neal to 30 years’ imprisonment with one year to be served at hard labor without benefits. The trial court did not vacate O’Neal’s third-felony offender adjudication and life sentence. O’Neal filed a motion to reconsider sentence which was denied by the trial court. In its written denial, the trial court again gave a sentencing range of 20 to 60 years and said that O’Neal had been sentenced at the lower end of the range. O’Neal appealed his resentencing.

On June 30, 2022, this court rendered its opinion in State v. O’Neal III. The opinion stated that this court considered O’Neal’s third-felony habitual offender classification in State v. O’Neal I and determined that he had been properly classified as a third-felony offender. This court found that his possession of a Schedule II, cocaine offense could be used to support his ₄habitual offender adjudication. This court noted that the sentencing range of 20 to 60 years the trial court provided was incorrect, and that no copy of the minutes showing a dismissal were attached to the trial court’s August 22, 2019, ruling. State v. O’Neal III, supra.

This court concluded that the trial court had provided "mutually exclusive simultaneous classifications" for O’Neal’s sentencing enhancement, classifying him as both a second-felony and third-felony habitual offender. This court stated, "Although the trial court determined that O’Neal should be considered a second-offender, it did not vacate his third-offender adjudication and sentence." This court said that O’Neal’s classification had to be "conclusively resolved" by the trial court and he should be subject to the corresponding appropriate sentencing range. This court specified that if the trial court determined that O’Neal should be classified a second-felony offender, his sentencing range was 7 ½ years to 30 years. If he was classified a third-felony offender, his sentencing range was 10 years to 30 years. Id.

This court reversed the trial court’s denial of O’Neal’s motion for reconsideration and vacated O’Neal’s sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment at hard labor, with one year to be served without benefits. This court remanded the case for resolution of O’Neal’s classification as a habitual offender and for resentencing within the applicable range. This court did not vacate any habitual offender adjudication in its ruling. Id.

On August 18, 2022, O’Neal filed a motion to consider his "Personal History Packet" in resentencing him. O’Neal attached several certificates of rehabilitation and an assessment from the department of corrections stating that he was unlikely to reoffend. He also said that he had not failed any drug ₅screens and had not violated any prison rules while incarcerated. He included letters from family, his pastor, and community members, showing support for him upon his release. He stated that his criminal record showed no violent offenses and that his offenses occurred when he was a teenager.

The state filed a resentencing memorandum in which it provided O’Neal’s felony criminal record, which included two counts of possession of a Schedule II, controlled dangerous substance; he pled guilty to one count and the other was dismissed. He also pled guilty to one count of simple burglary. The state referenced O’Neal’s first resentencing hearing in which the victim’s sister discussed the impact of her sister’s death upon their family. The state attached to its memorandum O’Neal’s habitual offender bill and the bills of information and copies of the minutes for both of his predicate offenses, which included a 1993 conviction for possession of cocaine in the First Judicial Court Case No. 166,106.

On September 29, 2022, the trial court held a resentencing hearing. The state said that O’Neal was adjudicated a third-felony offender and stated that his sentencing range was 10 to 30 years. The trial court itself did not state what the applicable range was, but said:

This court has reviewed everything so submitted for today, and at this time this court so dutifully resentences the defendant, petitioner Cedric O’Neal as a third-felony habitual offender, as affirmed, to serve 30 years at hard labor, one year without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence with credit for time served.

The court also ordered that O’Neal have no contact with the victim’s family. O’Neal was informed of his appeal and post-conviction relief time limits. O’Neal objected to the sentence. The court then amended its sentence stating that O’Neal was required to serve the entirety of his ₆sentence without the benefits of probation or suspension of sentence. The court provided no oral reasons for its ruling at that time

On October 7,...