State v. Lambert
| Decision Date | 27 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2018-KA-0777, NO. 2018-K-1024,2018-KA-0777 |
| Citation | 267 So.3d 648 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Nathaniel LAMBERT State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel Lambert |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
267 So.3d 648
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Nathaniel LAMBERT
State of Louisiana
v.
Nathaniel Lambert
NO. 2018-KA-0777
NO. 2018-K-1024
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
MARCH 27, 2019
Leon Cannizzaro, District Attorney, Scott G. Vincent, Assistant District Attorney, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ORLEANS PARISH, 619 S. White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/STATE OF LOUISIANA
Sherry Watters, LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, P. O. Box 58769, New Orleans, LA 70158, Nathaniel Lambert # 90883 (PRO SE), MPEY/SPRUCE—3, Louisiana State Prison, Angola, LA 70712 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/DEFENDANT
(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Tiffany G. Chase )
Judge Tiffany G. Chase
Nathaniel Lambert (hereinafter "Mr. Lambert") appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to quash, motion for discharge, and motion to reconsider sentencing pertaining to the resentencing of his convictions for aggravated rape and aggravated crime against nature. He asserts two counseled assignments of error. First, Mr. Lambert maintains the seventeen-year delay in resentencing is unreasonable, warranting a discharge of his convictions for aggravated rape and aggravated crime against nature. Second, he contends the sentences imposed are excessive.
Additionally before us is Mr. Lambert's pro se writ, seeking review of the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence – life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence – for his conviction of aggravated burglary enhanced by virtue of being adjudged a quadruple offender. We have consolidated this writ with this appeal.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm Mr. Lambert's sentences and deny his writ.
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1997, Mr. Lambert was charged by grand jury indictment of aggravated rape ( La. R.S. 14:42 ), aggravated burglary ( La. R.S. 14:60 ), and aggravated crime against nature ( La. R.S. 14:89.1 ).1 A twelve-person jury found him guilty on all counts. Mr. Lambert was sentenced to life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for the charge of aggravated rape; thirty years for the charge of aggravated burglary; and fifteen years for the charge of aggravated crime against nature. The State then filed a multiple bill on the aggravated burglary conviction. After a habitual offender hearing, the trial court vacated the thirty-year sentence and resentenced Mr. Lambert as a recidivist offender to life imprisonment. He appealed. This Court affirmed all of Mr. Lambert's convictions, but vacated the sentences on his convictions of aggravated rape and aggravated crime against nature, and remanded for resentencing because the trial court sentenced him prior to hearing his motion for new trial. Lambert , 1998-0730, p. 45, 749 So.2d at 767. Although the trial court ruled on other post-conviction relief, it never resentenced Mr.
Lambert on his convictions for aggravated rape and aggravated crime against nature.
In September 2017, Mr. Lambert filed a pro se motion to clarify sentences averring that his "RAP sheet" incorrectly reflected two life sentences and should be amended to only reflect the life sentence resulting from the enhanced sentence on aggravated burglary. The trial court denied the motion for clarification as premature and appointed Mr. Lambert counsel for a resentencing hearing.
The resentencing hearing occurred on April 3, 2018. In conjunction with the hearing, Mr. Lambert filed a pro se motion to quash and pro se motion for discharge from custody based on the delay in resentencing. These motions were denied and the court resentenced Mr. Lambert to life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on the count of aggravated rape, and fifteen years on the count of aggravated crime against nature, with both sentences to run concurrently, with credit for time served. After his motion to reconsider the sentences was denied, Mr. Lambert timely appealed.
After the appeal was lodged in this Court, Mr. Lambert filed a pro se motion in the trial court to correct his multiple offender sentence on the aggravated burglary conviction on the grounds of retroactive application of La. R.S. 15:308 and State ex rel. Esteen v. State , 2016-0949 (La. 1/30/18), 239 So.3d 233. The trial court denied the motion in a written ruling, finding Mr. Lambert would be ineligible for relief. Since he was resentenced to life imprisonment for the charge of aggravated rape, the retroactive application would not ameliorate his circumstances. La. R.S. 15:308(B). Mr. Lambert filed a pro se writ to this Court seeking supervisory review and further requesting a stay of his appeal or consolidation of his writ into his appeal. As disposition of this claim is germane to the appeal of his life sentence for aggravated rape, we ordered the writ to be consolidated with the instant appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court's ruling on a motion to quash involving factual determinations should not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Simmons , 2013-0312, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/16/13), 126 So.3d 692, 695. An appellate court may not set aside a sentence absent an abuse of discretion by the sentencing court. State v. Cann , 471 So.2d 701, 703 (La. 1985).
ERRORS PATENT
The record was reviewed for errors patent pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 920. None were found.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Lambert asserts two counseled assignments of error. We address each in turn before considering his pro se writ.
COUNSELED ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1: DELAY IN RESENTENCING
In Mr. Lambert's first counseled assignment of error, he argues the trial court erred in not discharging his sentences for aggravated rape and aggravated crime against nature because the seventeen-year delay in resentencing was unreasonable.2 Louisiana Constitution Article I § 22 provides:
All courts shall be open, and every person shall have an adequate remedy by due process of law and justice, administered
without denial, partiality, or unreasonable delay, for injury to him in his person, property, reputation, or other rights.
Principles of due process prohibit inordinate delays in post-conviction proceedings. State v. Duncan , 396 So.2d 297, 299 (La. 1981). These principles are primarily safeguarded by statutory law. See Betterman v. Montana , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1609, 1617 n.10, 194 L.Ed.2d 723 (2016) (listing, among other similar provisions, La. C.Cr.P. art. 874 ). La. C.Cr.P. art. 874 mandates sentences shall be imposed without unreasonable delay. In determining whether the delay in Mr. Lambert's resentencing was unreasonable or prejudicial, this Court must adopt a flexible approach evaluating the circumstances of his case. Duncan , 396 So.2d at 299 (citing City of Baton Rouge v. Bourgeois , 380 So.2d 63 (La. 1980) (per curiam ) and State v. Johnson , 363 So.2d 458 (La. 1978) ). That there was a delay of seventeen years prior to Mr. Lambert's resentencing is not disputed. Mr. Lambert contends this delay should be considered as presumptively unreasonable and that, coupled with alleged prejudice stemming from his loss of prison privileges, the appropriate sanction is discharge of his convictions of aggravated rape and aggravated crime against nature.3 See Bourgeois , 380 So.2d at 64. The question thus presented is whether such a sanction is warranted under the foregoing factual circumstances.
The unreasonableness of a sentencing delay is irrelevant in the absence of prejudice to the defendant.4
Johnson , 363 So.2d at 461 (citing La. C.Cr.P. art. 921) ; Duncan , 396 So.2d at 300 ; State v. Watkins , 2007-0789, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/21/07), 972 So.2d 381, 386 ("[e]ven assuming the delay was unreasonable, it did not prejudice [the defendant]"). As a conviction for aggravated rape mandates a sentence of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, we find Mr. Lambert has suffered no prejudice.5 See State v. Stewart , 1998-1215, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/10/99), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Coward
...and it is clear that is the sentence it intends Defendant to serve.In State v. Lambert , 18-777, 18-1024 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/27/19), 267 So.3d 648, writ denied , 19-736 (La. 1/22/20), 291 So.3d 1043, the defendant, who had been convicted of aggravated rape and sentenced to life imprisonment, ......
-
State v. Lambert
...no prejudice resulting from the delay between convictions and re-sentencing.[3] State v. Lambert, 2018-0777 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/27/19), 267 So.3d 648, writ denied, 2019-00736 (La. 1/22/20), 291 So.3d 1043. On March 16, 2020, after the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs but prior to the Unit......
-
State v. Henry
...The district court, which imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with the benefit of parole, was without authority to impose on Mr. 267 So.3d 648Henry any more lenient sentence. This assignment of error is without merit. DECREEFor the foregoing reasons, the defendant's sentence is affirmed......
-
State v. Lambert
...no prejudice resulting from the delay between convictions and re-sentencing.[3] State v. Lambert, 2018-0777 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/27/19), 267 So.3d 648, writ denied, 2019-00736 (La. 1/22/20), 291 So.3d 1043. On March 16, 2020, after the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs but prior to the Unit......