State of Louisiana Versus Juan Canales

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 25-KH-238

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CANALES COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

August 14, 2025

Jalisa Walker
Deputy Clerk

IN RE JUAN CANALES

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE JUNE B.
DARENSBURG, DIVISION "C", NUMBER 13-458

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
John J. Molaison, Jr., and Timothy S. Marcel

WRIT DENIED

This matter is before us on the relator’s Application for Supervisory Writ(s)
wherein he seeks to have this Court exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to reverse
the district court’s denial of his Motion to Vacate Habitual Offender Adjudication
and Correct Illegal Sentence (the “Motion to Vacate”). He contends that his
sentence as a second felony offender is illegal because he was a juvenile at the time
of the commission of the predicate offense that was used to enhance his sentence.
For the reasons stated below, we deny this application.

Relevant Facts and Procedural Posture

Initially, we observe that the relator failed to attach to his writ application
any pleadings relative to the predicate offense. Therefore, on the showing made,
the relator failed to present evidentiary support for his complaints made here.
However, in the interest of judicial economy, we will address the issue raised in
the relator’s writ application.

The relator’s date of birth is September 13, 1981. On September 1, 1999, in
th
24 JDC case number 99-5803, the relator was charged by bill of information with
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute on August 11, 1999, a felony, in
violation of La. R.S. 40:966(A). On March 15, 2000, the relator pled guilty as
charged and was sentenced, under La. C.Cr.P. art. 893(A), to serve five years,
suspended, with three years of active probation. His probation was terminable
after one year, upon compliance with certain conditions. At the time of the guilty
plea/conviction, he was 18 years old.

25-KH-238

On March 28, 2013, in 24th JDC case number 13-458, the relator was
charged by bill of information with one count of sexual battery upon a known
juvenile in violation of La. R.S. 14:43.1 After a trial by a six-person jury, he was
found guilty as charged.1 On October 13, 2015, the relator was sentenced to serve
10 years at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of
sentence. The State immediately filed a multiple offender bill of information
charging the relator with being a second felony offender, based on his September
2000 guilty plea to La. R.S. 40:966(A), a felony.2 The relator stipulated to the
multiple offender bill, his sentence was vacated, and he was sentenced as a second
felony offender to 15 years at hard labor without benefits of parole, probation or
suspension of sentence. The relator’s conviction and sentence (as amended) were
affirmed by this Court. State v. Canales, 16-272 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/7/16), 206
So.3d 458, writ denied, 17-46 (La. 9/22/17), 227 So.3d. 854.

On September 20, 2017, the relator filed a Motion to Correct an Illegal
Sentence under LSA-R.S. 15:308(B) and State ex rel Esteen v. State (16-0949 (La.
1/30/18), 239 So.3d 233). That motion was denied by the district court, which
found that Esteen “did not apply to the facts of this case because the defendant was
sentenced under the version of the law not affected by statutory changes and the
new rule in Esteen.” The relator took writs to this Court, which were denied on
September 18, 2023. In re: Juan Canales, 23-395 (La. App. 5 Cir.
9/18/23)(unpublished writ disposition). In denying the writ application, we stated
that:

Relator contends that the retroactive application of La. R.S. 15:308(B)
now renders him ineligible for his sentence as a second-felony
offender because his 2000 conviction for possession with the intent to
distribute marijuana in violation of La. R.S. 40:966(A) can no longer
be used as a predicate offense to enhance his sentence. Specifically,
Relator asserts that with respect to his prior conviction, he was
sentenced under La. C.Cr.P. 893(A) – a provision which he claims
now allows him relief under Esteen and La. R.S. 15:308.

Upon review of Relator’s application we find that … [t]he use of
Relator’s 2000 conviction … as a predicate offense to enhance his
sentence for sexual battery of a juvenile in 2015 was authorized by
La. R.S. 15:529.1(C), then and now. Thus Relator has failed to point
to an illegal term in his sentence.

(Footnote omitted).

The relator then filed the Motion to Vacate on March 11, 2025, which was
denied by the district court on March 18, 2025. In its judgment, the district court
stated:

The defendant again seeks review of his habitual offender sentence.
The court finds no error in the past proceedings. The defendant was
sentenced, both for the crime of sexual battery and as a habitual

1
The victim, A.V., was Relator’s former step-daughter. She was 18 years old at the time of
Relator’s trial in 2015, but her allegations stemmed from criminal actions taken by Relator years
earlier when she was 6 or 7 years old. Thus, the crime(s) would have occurred in 2002 or 2003.
2
The multiple bill states that Relator pled guilty to the predicate offense on March 15, 2015, but
he actually pled guilty to that offense on March 15, 2000, as stated above.
2

offender, under the law in effect at the time. His sentence has been
reviewed by this and the appellate court. The defendant has not
shown any error or any basis to warrant a lesser sentence.

The relator filed a Notice of Intention to Apply for Supervisory Writs, which
was deemed timely filed by the district court. The relator timely filed the instant
application on May 30, 2025, alleging that his sentence had been enhanced based
on a juvenile adjudication, which is impermissible under State v. Brown, 03-2788
(La. 7/6/04), 879 So.2d 1276.

Discussion

The relator seeks relief under La. C.Cr.P. art. 882(A), which provides that
“[a]n illegal sentence may be corrected at any time by the court that imposed the
sentence or by an appellate court on review.” As we discussed above, we held in
our September 2023 denial of the relator’s prior writ application seeking review of
the denial of his Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence, the use of his 2000
conviction of violating La. R.S. 40:966(A) as the predicate to enhance his 2015
sentence for violating La. R.S. 14:43.1 was authorized by applicable law then and
now. In the instant Motion to Vacate and this writ application, the relator has not
pointed to any illegal term in his sentence; he has only challenged the sufficiency
of his habitual offender status. Accordingly, the relator is not entitled to relief
under La. C.Cr.P. art. 882.

If considered as an application for post-conviction relief (an “APCR”), the
relator’s Motion to Vacate would be untimely under La. C.Cr.P. art 930.8(A)
because more than two years have elapsed since his conviction and sentence
became final. The relator knew or should have known of this claim asserted in the
Motion to Vacate at the time of his direct appeal and certainly within two years of
his conviction and sentence becoming final.

The Motion to Vacate also could not be considered as an APCR under La.
C.Cr.P. art. 930.4, which prohibits repetitive applications. The relator’s claim that
the predicate offense could not legally form the basis for his habitual offender
adjudication has already been decided by this Court in denying his 2023 writ
application, which sought review of the denial of his Motion to Correct an Illegal
Sentence.

Further, the relator stipulated to his habitual offender status and, by doing so,
waived his right to any non-jurisdictional defects in the sentencing proceedings
prior to his guilty plea. The relator’s guilty plea precludes review of such defects
by either appeal or post-conviction relief. State v. Abrego, 21-166 (La. App. 5 Cir.
12/1/21), 334 So.3d 883, 891; writ denied, 21-1949 (La. 2/22/22), 333 So.3d 450;
State v. Dadney, 14-511 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/16/14), 167 So.3d 55, 59, writ denied,
15-90 (La. 10/30/15), 179 So.3d 614; State v. Mitchell, 23-225 (La. App. 5 Cir.
12/27/23), 379 So. 3d 127, 133, writ denied, 2024-00146 (La. 10/1/24), 393 So. 3d
869

Finally, we find that the instant writ application lacks merit. In support of
his request for us to correct an alleged illegal sentence, the relator relies on State v.
Brown, 03-2788 (La. 7/6/04), 879 So.2d 1276. In Brown, the Louisiana Supreme
Court held that a prior juvenile adjudication of delinquency cannot be used as a
predicate offense, under La. R.S. 15:529.1, to enhance the sentence on an adult

3

felony conviction. The relator’s reliance on Brown is misplaced. Brown does not
apply in this case because he was not adjudicated as a delinquent, in the Juvenile
Court for the Parish of Jefferson (the “Juvenile Court”). See LSA-R.S. 13:1596(A)
and 1599(A); La. Ch.C. art. 303(1). Instead, he was convicted as an adult felon in
the 24th Judicial District Court.

La. Ch.C. art. 804(1)(a) provides that: “[b]efore March 1, 2019 … ‘child’
means any person under the age of twenty-one, including an emancipated minor,
who commits a delinquent act before attaining seventeen years of age.”
(Emphasis added). The relator has admitted that he was 17 years old at the time of
the commission of the predicate offense. Thus, he was not a juvenile when he was
charged with the predicate offense in 1999, nor when he pled guilty to the
predicate offense in 2000. The relator’s predicate felony conviction was not a
juvenile conviction and was properly charged in the multiple bill to which he pled
guilty.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we deny the relator’s Application for
Supervisory Writ.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 14th day of August, 2025.

FHW
JJM
TSM

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. TRAN
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 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 08/14/2025 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:

25-KH-238
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable June B. Darensburg (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Respondent)

MAILED
Juan Canales #424051 (Relator)
Rayburn Correctional Center
27268 Highway 21
Angie, LA 70426