State Of La. v. Boyer
| Decision Date | 17 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | 10-693 c/w 10-694 |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JONATHAN EDWARD BOYER |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 14005-02
J. DAVID PAINTER
Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Marc T. Amy, and J. David Painter, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
John F. Derosier
District Attorney
Cynthia S. Killingsworth
First Assistant District Attorney
Carla S. Sigler
Assistant District Attorney
Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana
Richard Bourke
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Jonathan Edward Boyer
In these consolidated cases, Defendant, Jonathan Edward Boyer, appeals his convictions of second degree murder and armed robbery with a firearm and the sentences imposed therewith. For the following reasons, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
Late in the evening of February 4, 2002, Defendant and his brother, Anthony Boyer, were walking along the roadway in Sulphur, Louisiana. They were given a ride by Bradlee Marsh in his truck. Defendant demanded money from Marsh. When Marsh did not comply, Defendant shot him three times in the head. Defendant then took Marsh's money and a silver chain. Marsh died as a result of the gunshot wounds. Defendant was apprehended in Jacksonville, Florida, on March 8, 2002.
Defendant was indicted under lower court docket number 14005-02 on June 6, 2002, for first degree murder, a violation of La.R.S. 14:30. On May 21, 2007, the indictment was amended to reduce the charge to second degree murder, a violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. On the same date, under lower court docket number 11337-07, Defendant was charged by a bill of information with armed robbery with a firearm, violations of La.R.S. 14:64 and 14:64.3. Both the amended indictment and the bill of information involved the same victim.
A jury trial began on September 22, 2009. On September 29, 2009, Defendant was found guilty on both counts. On October 14, 2009, Defendant filed a motion for new trial and a motion for arrest of judgment. Both motions were heard on October 14, 2009, and denied on the same date.
Following waiver of all delays, the trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the conviction for second degree murder. The court also sentenced Defendant to ninety-nine years imprisonment without benefit of parole on the conviction of armed robbery and an additional five years for the use of a firearm to be served consecutively to the ninety-years for a total of one hundred and four years. The sentences for the armed robbery with a firearm were ordered to be served concurrently with the life sentence. Defendant did not file a motion to reconsider the sentences. However, he objected in open court based on the issues raised in his sentencing memorandum.
Defendant appealed both lower court docket numbers in a timely manner. The appeals were ordered to be consolidated in conformity with the trial court's order of consolidation.
In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record.
There is a potential error regarding proceedings that took place after Defendant's incapacity to proceed was raised, but before he was found by the court to have the mental capacity to proceed.
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 642 states:
The defendant's mental incapacity to proceed may be raised at any time by the defense, the district attorney, or the court. When the question of the defendant's mental incapacity to proceed is raised, there shall be no further steps in the criminal prosecution, except the institution of prosecution, until the defendant is found to have the mental capacity to proceed.
In the present case, several steps took place after the issue of mental capacity to proceed was raised but prior to the finding that Defendant had the mental capacity to proceed.
On July 18, 2008, Judge G. Michael Canaday appointed a sanity commission comprised of Drs. James Anderson and Garrett Ryder to examine the Defendant to determine whether he had the capacity to proceed. The court ordered all pending matters suspended until Defendant's competency was determined. On the same date, on behalf of Judge Canaday, Judge D. Kent Savoie appointed Dr. Charles Robertson to the sanity commission in place of Dr. Ryder.
Defense counsel asked to be present at the sanity commission evaluation, and the State objected. The parties submitted briefs on the issue outlining their positions, and on July 23, 2008, the court denied the defense's request.
On August 4, 2008, Judge Robert Wyatt, at the request of Judge Canaday, appointed Drs. Ryder and Robertson to the sanity commission and set the competency hearing for August 6, 2008.
On August 6, 2008, the court held a hearing and determined that Defendant lacked the mental capacity to proceed at that time. Due to an extensive waiting list at the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System, Forensic Division, the court ordered that Defendant's name be placed on the list and that he be remanded to that facility. In the interim, the court ordered that Defendant be observed and treated and that a six-month status conference be scheduled as provided for in La.Code Crim.P. art. 648. The court explained that the State would have to set the date for the status hearing after consulting both the State's and the court's calendars. At the close of the August 6, 2008 hearing, the State filed a First Supplemental Response to Defendant's Omnibus Motion for Discovery of Forensic and Scientific Evidence, stating that it had not yet received a report on a fingerprint analysis and DNA testing that it had requested from the Southwest Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory but that it would supply the report upon receipt.
On September 8, 2008, the court issued a written Sanity Judgment, finding that Defendant lacked the mental capacity to proceed and ordering that Defendant be committed to remain in custody at Feliciana Forensic Facility until further order of the court.
On March 6, 2009, the State filed a Motion to Reappoint Sanity Commission, requesting re-examination of Defendant due to the expiration of the six-month period. The State requested the appointment of a sanity commission consisting of Drs. Robertson and Ryder to re-examine Defendant and to report to the court. An order reappointing a sanity commission comprised of Drs. Robertson and Ryder was signed by the court on March 6, 2009.
On March 16, 2009, the defense filed a Motion for Status Hearing and to Vacate Re-Appointment of Sanity Commission contending that the procedure outlined in La.Code Crim.P. art. 648(A)(2)(b) was not adhered to when the State filed, and the court granted, the State's ex parte request. On April 9, 2009, the State responded to the defense's motion, asking that the court uphold the status conference order but deny the motion to vacate the re-appointment of a sanity commission
On April 15, 2009, the defense filed a motion for recusal of Judge Canaday, asking for his recusal from the trial due to his receipt of ex parte communications from the State and his acceptance of and granting of the ex parte motion filed by the State. The State filed an opposition to the recusal motion. On April 15, 2009, ahearing was held, and the recusal motion was the first matter taken up. The recusal motion was summarily denied without referral for hearing by another division of the court. The defense indicated its intention to file a writ application, and its request for a stay of the proceedings was denied by the trial court. The issue of competency to proceed was then taken up by the court. The defense indicated that it was willing to proceed on the submission of the sanity reports and that it did not wish to cross-examine the physicians. The court subsequently found that Defendant was competent to proceed to trial.
Although a number of "steps" took place during the pendency of the competency issue, most concerned the procedures related to the capacity issue itself. One of the other "steps," the State's response to the discovery motion, has been found by the second circuit to not be prejudicial to a defendant. In State v. Darnell, 43, 048, pp. 11-12 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/13/08), 988 So.2d 870, 877, the second circuit stated:
As for defendant's argument concerning the trial court's alleged failure to stay the proceedings, the only intervening actions taken by the state or the trial court prior to the trial court's capacity determination involved the filing of discovery responses by the state and some apparent scheduling conferences. The purpose of the stay of prosecution under Article 642 is to ensure that no action prejudicial to the defendant will be taken until the defendant's capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings and to assist in his defense has been established. See, La. C. Cr. P. art. 642, Official Revision Comment (b); State v. Perkins, 00-9 (La.App. 5th Cir.05/17/00), 759 So.2d 334, writ denied, 00-1826 (La.), 813 So.2d 1098. None of the actions taken could be deemed prejudicial to defendant in any manner.
We agree with this reasoning and find that this "step" was not prejudicial to Defendant.
As for the motion to recuse, we find that any error that occurred was harmless. In State v. Karam, 02-163 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/31/02), 834 So.2d 1003, hearings on several motions were held in the interim between the appointment of a sanitycommission and the determination that the defendant was found competent to proceed to trial. In addressing the issue, this court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial