State of Louisiana Versus Ke'michael Straughter

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 21-KH-295

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

KE'MICHAEL STRAUGHTER COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

September 29, 2021 **CONFIDENTIAL**
LSA-RS 46:1844(W)
Susan Buchholz ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
First Deputy Clerk ONLY

IN RE KE'MICHAEL STRAUGHTER

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF ST JAMES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
STEVEN C. TUREAU, DIVISION "D", NUMBER 11,6312

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Jude G. Gravois

WRIT GRANTED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

Relator, Ke’Michael Straughter, a pro se defendant, is seeking review of the
district court’s March 1, 2021 denial of his Motion for Clarification of Sentence. For
the reasons discussed herein below, we grant the writ application and remand the
matter with instructions.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, on June 13, 2011, relator pled guilty
to two counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile in violation of La. R.S. 14:81. On
August 8, 2011, the district court sentenced relator to concurrent terms of ten years
imprisonment at hard labor, six years suspended, with two years to be served without
benefit of parole, probation, or suspension sentence. As a part of the plea agreement
providing for the six years being suspended, upon his release from prison, relator
was required to remain on supervised probation for five years. He did not appeal his
convictions or sentences.
After serving four years of his sentence, while relator was on supervised
probation, the State filed a Rule to Revoke his probation on the basis that relator
violated the terms of his probation. At the revocation proceeding held on September
9, 2019, relator entered into a plea agreement to serve a five-year sentence in lieu of
the remaining six years on his original sentence, with credit for time served.
On February 23, 2021, relator filed a Motion for Clarification of Sentence
with the district court asserting that he did not receive credit for all the time spent
incarcerated or the time spent on probation, but rather only received credit for the
time he spent in custody after the State filed the Rule to Revoke his probation and
prior to the revocation hearing. On March 12, 2021, the district court denied relator’s
motion on the basis that he asserted the same issue in his prior Motion to Cure
Deficiency in the Record, which was denied by the court on December 28, 2020 on
21-KH-295

the grounds that there were no deficiencies in the record and that relator’s rationale
and interpretation of the plea agreement was incorrect.
In his writ application, relator contends that he did not receive credit for the
time he served while on probation, a period ranging from March 21, 2015 to March
19, 2019, as outlined in the plea agreement.
A review of the record reveals ambiguity in the September 9, 2019 revocation
hearing transcript as to the trial court’s intentions regarding credit for time served.
At the sentencing hearing, the following was stated:
Ms. Clark: Your Honor, the State, or the Probation
and Parole, has extended an offer, doing five years,
backing up five, but Mr. Straughter was concerned. He
wants to make sure he got credit for all the time served.

The Court: Okay.

Mr. Kotoski: Yeah, I mean, he gets credit for time
served on this docket.

The Court: Obviously, yeah.

Ms. Clark: Yeah, I explained that, but he wanted to
hear that from the Court.

The Court: Yes.

The Defendant: I’m talking about so -- so it’s going
-- it’s going to be the credit from -- from all the time I
served on this charge?

The Court: On this charge.

The Defendant: From 2011 all the way until 2019?

The Court: Credit for time served on anything
that you served on this charge.

The Defendant: And it’s going to be five years?

The Court: That’s what he’s saying.

Ms. Clark: Yeah.

The Defendant: All right. Yeah.

Ms. Clark: He’ll do that.

The Court: Okay. All right. Is it to run concurrent
with any sentence that --

Mr. Kotoski: Yeah, that’s fine.

The Court: -- any other sentence that he may serve?
And it’ll be up to your other judge as to whether those - -
2

whenever those charges are disposed of, if you were to be
convicted and sentenced, it will be up to that judge
whether that judge allows that sentence to be concurrent
with this. Okay?

******

The Court: And the basis for you waving that is that
Probation and Parole has offered to allow you to serve five
years, with credit for time served on this charge, to run
concurrent with any other sentence that you may be
currently serving?

The Defendant: Yes

******
The Court: Okay.

The Court will accept the stipulation to revoking his
probation, impose a sentence of five years as per the
agreement with Probation and Parole, credit for all time
served on this charge since his date of arrest, and
concurrent with any other sentence that he may be serving.
Okay?

Mr. Kotosku: Yes ma’am. Thank you.

(Emphasis added.)

The court minutes for the September 9, 2019 sentencing do not accurately
reflect what occurred at the sentencing hearing. Specifically, the minute entry
provides that the “Court sentenced the defendant to the Department of Corrections
for five (5) years with credit for time served since May 22, 2016, to run concurrent
with any sentence he may be serving.” Additionally, the uniform commitment order,
dated November 20, 2019, states: “Under the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. art 880,
defendant is given credit for time served since 5-22-16.”
Generally, this Court would order the trial court to amend the minutes of
sentencing to accurately reflect the sentencing transcript. However, in this instance,
the sentencing transcript is unclear as to the trial court's intent regarding credit for
time served. During the sentencing colloquy, the court stated that defendant would
get “[c]redit for time served on anything that you served on this charge.” The actual
sentence states that defendant was given “credit for all time served on this charge
since his date of arrest.” Thus, this matter is remanded to the trial court for
clarification of the credit for time served given to relator, and we instruct the trial
court to specify the periods to be credited to relator. This writ application is granted
and remanded with instructions.
Gretna, Louisiana, this 29th day of September, 2021.

FHW
SMC
JGG

3

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

NANCY F. VEGA
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 09/29/2021 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

21-KH-295
E-NOTIFIED
23rd Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Steven C. Tureau (DISTRICT JUDGE)
No Attorney(s) were ENOTIFIED

MAILED
Honorable Ricky L. Babin (Respondent) Ke'Michael Straughter #588401 (Relator)
District Attorney Allen Correctional Center
23rd Judicial District Court 3751 Lauderdale Woodyard Road
Post Office Box 66 Kinder, LA 70648
Convent, LA 70723