State of Louisiana v. Joshua A. Chapman

Judgment rendered November 20, 2024.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,796-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

JOSHUA A. CHAPMAN Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
Fifth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Franklin, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 2022-124F

Honorable John Clay Hamilton, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Chad Ikerd

PENNY WISE DOUCIERE Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

AMANDA MICHELE WILKINS
SHIRLEY GUILLORY GEE
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before STONE, COX, and HUNTER, JJ.

HUNTER, J.

Defendant, Joshua A. Chapman, was charged by bill of indictment

with two counts of aggravated kidnapping, in violation of La. R.S. 14:44,

two counts of first degree rape, in violation of La. R.S. 14:42, two counts of

armed robbery, in violation of La. R.S. 14:64, possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon, in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1, and attempted armed

robbery, in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and 14:64.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to two counts of

second degree rape, two counts of armed robbery, and attempted armed

robbery. Defendant agreed to a sentencing cap of 50 years, and he was

sentenced to serve 40 years for both counts of second degree rape, 50 years

for each count of armed robbery, and 49 years for attempted armed robbery.

The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently and at hard labor

without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. For the

following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

On November 28, 2021, defendant, Joshua A. Chapman, went to the

Family Dollar Store in Winnsboro, Louisiana, where two female employees

were working. Once defendant entered the store, he locked the doors,

produced two large knives, and ordered the employees to empty the cash

registers and safe.1 The employees emptied both cash registers and gave

defendant the money. Thereafter, defendant held the women at knifepoint

and ordered them outside, where he forced them into one of the women’s

vehicle. One woman drove the vehicle, while defendant sat in the back seat

1
Defendant’s actions inside the store were captured on the store’s surveillance
cameras.

with the other woman. Still wielding the knife, defendant directed the driver

to his residence.

Once they arrived at defendant’s residence, he ordered the women to

remove their clothing and sit on the sofa. Defendant held the women

hostage overnight, and during the course of the night, defendant forced them

to engage in sexual intercourse with him. According to the victims,

defendant penetrated them vaginally and anally, multiple times, and he

forced them to perform oral sex on him. He also forced them to penetrate

themselves with sex toys supplied by defendant.2 During the rapes,

defendant kept a knife within reach, and would point it at the victims.

According to the victims, defendant refused to allow them to talk to each

other, and when he thought he overheard them, he pointed a shotgun in their

faces.

The following morning, defendant armed himself with a shotgun,

ammunition, and a knife, compelled the women back into the vehicle, and

demanded to be driven to a bank. Upon learning the bank had not yet

opened for business, defendant ordered the woman who was driving to take

him to a nearby gas station. When they arrived at the gas station, defendant

handed the driver $20 to purchase gas. The driver frantically approached the

gas station attendant’s window, informed the attendant she had been

kidnapped, and asked her to call 9-1-1. At that point, defendant approached

the window armed with a shotgun. Defendant stuck the shotgun through the

opening in the window and demanded money from the attendant.3 The

The DNA obtained from the victims’ sexual assault examinations was consistent
2

with defendant’s DNA.
3
The surveillance video from the gas station was retrieved by law enforcement
officers.
2

attendant called 9-1-1, and defendant was apprehended by the Franklin

Parish Sheriff’s Office.

On February 24, 2022, defendant was charged by bill of indictment

with two counts of aggravated kidnapping, in violation of La. R.S. 14:44,

two counts of first degree rape, in violation of La. R.S. 14:42, two counts of

armed robbery, in violation of La. R.S. 14:64, possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon, in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1, and attempted armed

robbery, in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and 14:64. Defendant entered a plea

of not guilty to all charges.

On June 2, 2022, defense counsel filed a “Motion for Appointment of

Sanity Commission and for Mental Examination and for a Contradictory

Hearing Concerning the Defendant’s Competency.” Defense counsel argued

defendant had a history of mental health issues, he had been diagnosed with

schizophrenia in 2008 and a psychotic disorder in 2016, and he had been

hospitalized multiple times for “mental health issues.” The trial court

granted the motion and appointed Dr. Philip Scurria and Dr. Candi Hill to

evaluate defendant.

Following the mental health examinations, Dr. Scurria and Dr. Hill

determined defendant was competent to proceed, capable of understanding

the nature of the pleadings against him, able to assist in his defense, and able

to distinguish right from wrong when he committed the offenses. Both

reports were filed into the record under seal.

A hearing was conducted on October 4, 2022, during which the trial

court noted the reports and findings of both mental health experts. Defense

counsel objected to the reports and “reserved the right to traverse the reports

by having an independent evaluation.” Based upon the reports, the trial
3

court ruled defendant was “competent and capable of standing trial and

assisting in his defense.” Defense counsel objected to the court’s ruling but

did not file a motion for an independent examination at that time.

The trial was scheduled to commence July 31, 2023. However, on

July 25, 2023, defense counsel filed a motion for an independent

examination and a motion to continue trial pending the outcome of the

examination. On the record, defense counsel stated defendant had given him

the name of a physician, and he (defense counsel) was going to handwrite

the physician’s name on the order. The trial court denied the motion for an

independent examination in open court. The trial judge handwrote

“DENIED” on the order and struck through the language requesting the

proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of the independent examination.

Later that day, defendant appeared in court with counsel and pled

guilty to two counts of second degree rape, two counts of armed robbery,

and attempted armed robbery. In exchange for defendant’s guilty plea, the

State dismissed the two counts of aggravated kidnapping and the charge of

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, amended both counts of first

degree rape to charge defendant with second degree rape, and agreed to a

sentencing cap of 50 years.

During the Boykin hearing, defendant informed the court he was

taking an “anti-psychotic” medication, but he did not believe the medication

prevented him from understanding the proceedings or the questions posed by

the trial court. He also stated his “mental problems” did not prevent him

from understanding the nature of the proceedings. Defendant further

informed the court he understood the charges against him, the crimes to

which he was pleading guilty, the plea agreement, and the consequences
4

thereof. Defendant also stated he had reviewed the plea agreement with his

attorney, and he was pleading guilty because he was, in fact, guilty of the

charges against him. Defendant also expressed he was satisfied with his

counsel’s performance, and he believed counsel had reviewed his case and

any possible defenses he would have. The trial court found defendant was

competent to enter the guilty plea, and he had waived his constitutional

rights freely, voluntarily, and intelligently.

A sentencing hearing was conducted on September 26, 2023. The

trial court reviewed the presentence investigation report (“PSI”) and

sentenced defendant to serve 40 years for both counts of second degree rape,

50 years for each count of armed robbery, and 49 years for attempted armed

robbery. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently and at hard

labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

Further, the court notified defendant of the requirement to register as a sex

offender for a lifetime, upon his release, pursuant to La. R.S. 15:544(B).

Subsequently, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider

sentence.

Defendant appeals.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends his due process rights were violated because the

trial court accepted his guilty plea after signing an order to appoint an

independent physician to evaluate defendant’s competency. According to

defendant, his guilty plea is “null and void” because he entered the plea “on

the same day as the order granting the independent examination was signed,

and without a subsequent contradictory hearing[.]” Notwithstanding the

written order and the unequivocal denial in open court, defendant
5

inexplicably argues the trial court granted the motion for an independent

examination and appointed Dr. Thomas Colvin to evaluate defendant.

Despite trial counsel’s comments on the record, defendant now maintains the

trial judge, not trial counsel, handwrote Dr. Colvin’s name on the order, and

he asserts the “DENIED” notation was in reference to the denial of the

motion to continue. Defendant argues prior to accepting defendant’s guilty

plea, the trial court was required to conduct a contradictory hearing, after an

independent examination, to determine defendant’s mental capacity to

proceed.

A person who lacks the mental capacity to understand the proceedings

against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in his defense may not be

subject to trial. The failure to observe such procedures violates a

defendant’s due process right to a fair trial. Where the record does not

reflect that a contradictory hearing was held or that a defendant’s

competency was ever determined by the trial court prior to his guilty plea

being accepted, the guilty plea is invalid and the plea and sentence must be

vacated and set aside. State v. Nomey, 613 So. 2d 157 (La. 1993); State v.

Thomas, 47,020 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/11/12), 91 So. 3d 1207.

As stated above, defendant argues his guilty plea is null and void

because his “rights of Due Process were violated when the trial court

accepted his plea after previously signing an order to appoint a doctor to

determine his competency.” Our review of the record reveals this argument

is a gross mischaracterization of what occurred in this case and is clearly

belied by the record.

6

The record reveals July 25, 2023, defense counsel filed a motion for

an independent examination and a motion to continue the trial pending the

outcome of the examination. On the record, defense counsel stated:

[Y]our Honor, I’m filing this, I got the name from [defendant],
Dr. Tom Colvin, that’s who I’m going to write on here and I’d
just ask for a ruling from the Court on that.

Thus, the record reveals defense counsel, in open court, indicated he was

going to handwrite the doctor’s name on the order, and the record clearly

shows he followed his statement up by writing, “Dr. Thomas Colvin, M.D.,”

on the written order. The trial court unequivocally denied defendant’s

motions, stating:

[H]e’s entitled to ask for an independent examination, however,
the fact is that it’s been over nine months since *** my ruling
on the sanity commission [and] it’s been over ten months since
the – Dr. Scurria and Dr. Hill rendered their report[s]. The time
to ask for an independent examination would have been some
time well prior to today, three days or four days before the trial
is going to start, so I appreciate the fact that he has that
opportunity but I’m going to deny the motion for an
independent examination at this point in the proceedings.

The written order provides as follows:

Considering the defendant’s motion, IT IS ORDERED that the
following evaluator(s) are hereby appointed to conduct the
evaluation of the defendant:

Dr. Thomas Colvin, M.D.

DENIED[4]

4
“Dr. Thomas Colvin, M.D.” was handwritten on the judgment by defense
counsel, and “DENIED” was handwritten by the trial judge. The trial court also struck
through the following language in the order:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there shall be no further steps in the
criminal prosecution of the above-captioned matter until the defendant is
found to have the mental capacity to proceed.

7

Further, the court stated on the record it would deny the motion to continue

trial and signed a wholly separate order denying that motion. Defense

counsel asserted on the record he would seek supervisory review of the

denials of both orders; however, he did not do so.

Consequently, contrary to defendant’s argument herein, we find the

trial court did not grant an order to appoint an independent physician to

determine his competency. Earlier in the proceedings, the trial court

appointed a sanity commission to determine whether defendant was

competent to stand trial. During the competency hearing, the trial court

noted the sanity commission’s unanimous finding that defendant was

competent to proceed, capable of understanding the nature of the pleadings

against him, able to assist in his defense, and able to distinguish right from

wrong when he committed the offenses. Based on the reports of the experts,

the trial court ruled defendant was “competent and capable of standing trial

and assisting in his defense.” Less than one week prior to trial, defense

counsel requested an independent examination. The trial court denied the

motion orally, in open court and via a written order on which the trial judge

handwrote “DENIED” on the order. Accordingly, we find no merit to

defendant’s argument that his motion for an independent examination was

granted, and we hereby affirm defendant’s convictions and sentences.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s convictions and sentences are

hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

8