State of Louisiana Versus Michael C. Adams AKA "Shawty Mike"

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 23-KA-508

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL C. ADAMS AKA "SHAWTY MIKE" COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 16-7075, DIVISION "M"
HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS MORVANT, JUDGE PRESIDING

August 14, 2024

SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson,
Scott U. Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel

SENTENCES AFFIRMED
SUS
MEJ
TSM

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Thomas J. Butler
Matthew R. Clauss

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
MICHAEL ADAMS
Jane L. Beebe

SCHLEGEL, J.

This is defendant Michael Adam’s second appeal. In the first appeal, this

Court affirmed defendant’s convictions for second degree murder in violation of

La. R.S. 14:30.1 (count one), conspiracy to rob Alfred Hill, Jr. while armed with a

firearm in violation of La. R.S. 14:26 and La. R.S. 14:64 (count two), and

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (count

three). However, we vacated defendant’s sentences on counts two and three. See

State v. Adams, 22-271 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/10/23), 364 So.3d 1272, 1289-90. In

this appeal, defendant challenges the excessiveness of the consecutive sentences

imposed by the trial court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm defendant’s

sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The underlying facts and procedural history of defendant’s convictions are

fully set forth in this Court’s prior opinion in Adams, supra. The trial court

originally sentenced defendant on February 7, 2022, to life imprisonment without

the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on count one;

imprisonment for fifty years on count two; and imprisonment for twenty years

without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on count three.

After reviewing the sentencing transcript, we determined that defendant’s sentence

was indeterminate as to whether the sentences were to run concurrently or

consecutively. Therefore, we affirmed defendant’s convictions, but we did not

address the merits of defendant’s assignment of error regarding the excessiveness

of the consecutive nature of his sentences. This Court also found that the trial

court imposed an illegal sentence on count two when it sentenced defendant to fifty

years imprisonment even though La. R.S. 14:26 and La. R.S. 14:64 only provide

for a maximum sentence of forty-nine-and-one-half-years. As such, this Court

23-KA-508 1

affirmed defendant’s convictions, vacated the sentences on counts two and three,

and remanded for resentencing. Id. at 1290-91.

On June 1, 2023, the trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment at

hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on

count one; forty-nine-and-one-half years imprisonment at hard labor on count two;

and twenty years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation,

or suspension of sentence on count three. The trial court also ordered the sentence

on count two to run consecutively to the sentences on counts one and three. The

trial court further ordered the sentence on count three to run concurrently with the

sentence on count one and consecutively to the sentence on count two. This

appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred when it imposed

excessive consecutive sentences even though all three counts arose from the same

facts and circumstances. Defendant states that he is re-urging the argument made

in the first appeal since the issue of excessive consecutive sentences was

pretermitted when this Court vacated the sentences on counts two and three. He

further complains that the trial court did not provide reasons for the consecutive

sentences either at the time of the original sentencing or on remand during the

resentencing.

The State responds that defendant failed to present any specific grounds

either orally or in writing challenging the sentences imposed after remand for

counts two and three. As such, the State argues that defendant is only entitled to

appellate review of those sentences for bare constitutional excessiveness.

Nevertheless, the State contends that a review for bare constitutional excessiveness

does not include consideration of the only argument defendant now presents on

appeal, namely, that those sentences were improperly imposed consecutively. The

23-KA-508 2

State asserts that because defendant does not contend that any of his sentences on

their own are excessive, this Court’s analysis may end there.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(B) provides that a motion for reconsideration of

sentence “shall be oral at the time of sentence or shall be in writing thereafter and

shall set forth the specific grounds on which the motion is based.” La. C.Cr.P. art.

881.1(E) provides that the “[f]ailure to make or file a motion to reconsider

sentence or to include a specific ground upon which a motion to reconsider

sentence may be based, including a claim of excessiveness, shall preclude the state

or the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or from urging any

ground not raised in the motion on appeal or review.”

While the record reflects that defendant orally objected to his sentences, he

did not specifically raise the issue of the consecutive nature of his sentences, nor

did he file a written motion to reconsider the sentences following his resentencing

on June 1, 2023. Failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence or to state the

specific grounds upon which the motion is based limits a defendant to a bare

review of the sentence for unconstitutional excessiveness. State v. Rodgers, 16-14

(La. App. 5 Cir. 10/26/16), 202 So.3d 1189, 1200, writ denied, 16-2189 (La.

9/15/17), 225 So.3d 479, and 16-2093 (La. 1/29/18), 235 So.3d 1104.

Additionally, although defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentences

following his original sentencing, he did not file such a motion after he was

resentenced. Where a court imposes a new sentence following vacation of a prior

sentence, the defendant is required to file a new motion for reconsideration of

sentence to preserve appellate review of the newly-imposed sentence. See State v.

Evans, 09-477 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/29/09), 30 So.3d 958, 965, writ denied, 10-363

(La. 3/25/11), 61 So.3d 653. In such cases, “[t]he court cannot assume that the

defendant’s objections to the earlier sentence are equally applicable to the new

sentence imposed.” Id.

23-KA-508 3

On appeal, defendant does not contend that any sentence on its own is

excessive. Rather, he argues that the consecutive nature of his sentences makes

them excessive. This Court has held that when the consecutive nature of sentences

is not specifically raised in the trial court, the issue is not included in the review for

unconstitutional excessiveness and the defendant is precluded from raising the

issue on appeal. Id. Accordingly, we find defendant is precluded from challenging

as excessive the consecutive nature of his sentences.

ERROR PATENT REVIEW

The record was reviewed for errors patent, according to the mandates of La.

C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); and State v. Weiland,

556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1990). As this is defendant’s second appeal, the

error patent review was limited to his resentencing. We find no errors patent that

require corrective action.

CONCLUSION

Upon review of the record, we find no merit in defendant’s assignment of

error. Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s sentences.

SENTENCES AFFIRMED

23-KA-508 4

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL 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 JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
AUGUST 14, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

23-KA-508
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS MORVANT (DISTRICT JUDGE)
MATTHEW R. CLAUSS (APPELLEE) THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE) JANE L. BEEBE (APPELLANT)

MAILED
HONORABLE PAUL D. CONNICK, JR.
(APPELLEE)
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
200 DERBIGNY STREET
GRETNA, LA 70053