State v. Dufrene

• Decision Date: 14 April 2023
• Docket Number: 2022 KA 0762
• Parties: STATE OF LOUISIANA v. MICHAEL J. DUFRENE
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

1

STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
MICHAEL J. DUFRENE

No. 2022 KA 0762

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

April 14, 2023

On Appeal from the Twenty-First Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana Docket No. 1500598 Honorable Brenda Bedsole Ricks, Judge Presiding

Scott M. Perrilloux District Attorney Livingston, Louisiana and Brett Sommer Assistant District Attorney Livingston, Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee State of Louisiana

Prentice L. White Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant/ Appellant Michael J. Dufrene

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, AND GREENE, JJ.

2

McClendon, J.

Defendant, Michael J. Dufrene, was charged by bill of information with three counts of forgery, violations of LSA-R.S. 14:72(B) (counts 1-3), and one count of theft over $1,500, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:67(B) (count 4). Defendant pled not guilty and, following a jury trial, was found guilty as charged on counts 1-3. On count 4, defendant was found guilty of the responsive offense of theft with a value of $750 or more, but less than $5,000. Defendant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment at hard labor on each of the forgery convictions and to three years imprisonment at hard labor on the theft conviction. All four sentences were initially ordered to run consecutively, resulting in a total length of imprisonment of twenty-four years. Defendant made an oral motion to reconsider sentence, arguing that consecutive sentences were illegally harsh. The trial court granted the motion in part and ordered that the sentence for the theft conviction would run concurrently. The sentences for the forgery convictions remained consecutive. Consequently, the total length of the imprisonment was reduced from twenty-four years to twenty-one years. The trial court denied defendant's pro-se motion for amendment, modification, or reconsideration of sentence.

Defendant appealed, designating five assignments of error. This Court affirmed the convictions and sentences in State v. Dufrene, 2017-1496 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/4/18), 251 So.3d 1114, 1126 (Dufrene I).^[1] Defendant subsequently filed an application for writ of certiorari and/or review. In State v. Dufrene, 2018-1174 (La. 5/28/19), 273 So.3d 301 (per curiam) (Dufrene II), the Louisiana Supreme Court granted defendant's writ in part, vacated the sentences, and remanded for resentencing in accordance with Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure articles 883 and 894.1.

On remand, defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment at hard labor on each of the forgery convictions and to three years imprisonment at hard labor on the theft conviction, to run consecutively. Thus, upon resentencing, the total length of

3

defendants imprisonment increased from twenty-one years to thirty-three years.^[2] The trial court denied defendants motion to reconsider sentence. Defendant now appeals, arguing that the sentences imposed on remand are excessive. For the following reasons, we affirm the sentence on count 4, vacate the sentences on counts 1-3, and remand for resentencing on those counts.

STATEMENT OF FACTS ^[3]

Douglas Jiles's primary business was refurbishing pool tables and restoring vintage Rolex watches. On a few occasions, David Raiford, who was a friend of defendant, assisted Jiles in moving pool tables. On one particular date, Raiford and Jiles were on a job at Central Avenue Billiards in Amite. While Jiles was in the building, Raiford went inside Jiles's truck in the back parking lot of the business and took several of Jiles's blank personal checks, as well as a Rolex watch that was in the ashtray of the truck. According to Jiles, the value of the watch was approximately $2,600.00.

After taking the checks, Raiford filled out three of them and wrote defendant's name in the "Pay to the order of" section. Raiford also forged Jiles's signature on each of the three checks, which were in the amounts of $950.00, $450.00, and $500.00. Raiford then gave die checks to defendant to cash. Raiford also gave defendant the Rolex watch he had taken from Jiles's truck to defendant to sell.

On December 22,2014, defendant cashed two of the checks at two different banks in Hammond. On the same day, defendant went to the Gold Into Cash pawn shop in Hammond and sold the Rolex watch for $200.00. The following day, on December 23, 2014, defendant cashed the third check at one of the banks he had visited the previous day. According to defendant, he gave all of the cash to Raiford.

On January 13, 2015, defendant went back to the pawn shop to try to sell a ring. The owner of the pawn shop called the police, and defendant was arrested. Detective Antoine Vicknair, with the Hammond Police Department, interviewed defendant that day

4

regarding the checks he had cashed and the Rolex watch he had pawned. Defendant told the detective he did not realize that the checks he cashed were stolen or forged, and also stated that Raiford assured him the watch was not stolen, claiming it belonged to Raiford's cousin or uncle.

Defendant did not testify at trial.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In defendant's sole assignment of error, he argues that the consecutive sentences imposed on remand are excessive. Defendant specifically contends that the trial court committed reversible error by increasing defendant's twenty-one year^[4] sentence to thirty-three years following a remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court. Defendant maintains that, rather than providing justification for levying consecutive sentences against him at the time of the original sentences, the trial court focused on defendant's "new convictions," which were the result of guilty pleas defendant entered after the convictions at issue in this appeal.^[5] Defendant argues the trial court "simply wanted to place a harsh sentence on [his] shoulders without explaining why it determined that a consecutive sentence was proper." Defendant notes that the trial court focused heavily on his criminal record on remand, though it "informally skipped any discussion of his record during the 2017 sentencing." He argues that his new increased and consecutive sentences must be vacated because the trial court neither provided a sufficient explanation for why it imposed a...