State of Louisiana Versus Keith Johnson

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 25-KH-317

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

KEITH JOHNSON COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

August 08, 2025

Linda Tran
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE KEITH JOHNSON

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS
MORVANT, DIVISION "M", NUMBER 20-794

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, and Scott U. Schlegel

WRIT DENIED

Relator, Keith Johnson, seeks review of the trial court’s June 9, 2025 Order,

which denied his “Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence Pursuant to Basis for

Valid Sentence.” Relator contends that his sentence entered pursuant to a guilty

plea on October 20, 2022 is illegal because he was not apprised of the minimum

sentence applicable to the charged offenses prior to pleading guilty. As such, he

argues his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligently entered and is

constitutionally invalid pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 882 and 872.

A review of the district court record shows that on August 27, 2020, relator

was charged in a bill of indictment with second degree murder in violation of La.

R.S. 14:30.1 (count one); obstruction of justice in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1

(count two); and convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of La. R.S.

14:95.1 (count three).

Defendant pled guilty on October 20, 2022 to the amended charge of

manslaughter in a violation of La. R.S. 14:31 (count one); obstruction of justice in

violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1 (count two); and convicted felon in possession of a

firearm in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (count three). According to the

commitment order, the trial court sentenced relator to forty years imprisonment at

hard labor on count one, ten years imprisonment at hard labor on count two, and

twenty years imprisonment at hard labor on count three. The trial court ordered the

sentences on counts one and three to run concurrently with each other, but the

sentence on count two was ordered to run consecutively to the sentences on counts

one and three.

Although La. C.Cr.P. art. 882(A) provides that an illegal sentence may be

corrected at any time, a defendant must point to an illegal term in his sentence to

raise a claim cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. State v. Parker,

98-256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694, 695. A defendant may only raise claims

relating to the legality of the sentence itself under the applicable sentencing

statutes in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. State v. Gedric, 99-1213 (La.

App. 1 Cir. 6/3/99), 741 So.2d 849, 851-52, writ denied, 99-1830 (La. 11/5/99),

751 So.2d 239. When a defendant fails to point to a claimed illegal term in his

sentence, he does not raise a claim cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal

sentence. Parker, supra.

Here, defendant does not point to an illegal term in his sentence. Instead, he

asserts that he was not apprised of the minimum sentences applicable to the

charged offenses before pleading guilty. As such, because defendant’s filing

below did not point to a claimed illegal term in his sentence, he did not raise a

claim cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Accordingly, the “at

any time” language of La. C.Cr.P. art. 882 does not apply to defendant’s filing and

the prescriptive period of La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 applies instead.

If this court were to consider defendant’s motion as an application for post-

conviction relief,1 it appears untimely pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A), which

provides in pertinent part: “No application for post conviction relief, including

applications which seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if it is filed

more than two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become

final.”2 See Carlin v. Cain, 97-2390 (La. 3/13/98), 706 So.2d 968 (appellate courts

may raise the time bar of La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 sua sponte).

Further, even if we were to consider defendant’s application as a timely-filed

request for supervisory review of an application for post-conviction relief,

defendant has not attached any evidence for this court to consider his claim that he

was not apprised of the minimum sentences before pleading guilty, including the

plea form and transcript of the Boykin colloquy with the trial court.

Accordingly, this writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 8th day of August, 2025.

SUS
JGG
MEJ

1
The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that courts should “look through the
caption of the pleadings in order to ascertain their substance and to do substantial justice.” See
State v. Moses, 05-787 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/9/06), 932 So.2d 701, 706 n.3, writ denied, 06-2171
(La. 4/5/07), 954 So.2d 140.
2
Defendant’s conviction and sentence became final in 2022.

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 08/08/2025 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-317
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Shayna Beevers Morvant (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Respondent)

MAILED
Keith Johnson #743199 (Relator)
Rayburn Correctional Center
27268 Highway 21
Angie, LA 70426