State of Louisiana v. Courtney Paul Savoy

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-1140

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

COURTNEY PAUL SAVOY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 288,660
HONORABLE THOMAS MARTIN YEAGER, DISTRICT JUDGE

OPINION ON REMAND

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX
CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Sylvia R. Cooks, and
John D. Saunders, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

James C. Downs
District Attorney - 9th Judicial District Court
Willard Trichel Armitage, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney - 9th Judicial District Court
P. O. Drawer 1472
Alexandria, LA 71309
Telephone: (318) 4473-6650
COUNSEL FOR:
Plaintiff/Appellee - State of Louisiana

Edward Kelly Bauman
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 1641
Lake Charles, LA 70602-1641
Telephone: (337) 491-0570
COUNSEL FOR:
Defendant/Appellant - Courtney Paul Savoy

Courtney Paul Savoy
David Wade Correctional Center
670 Bell Hill Road
Homer, LA 71040

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

Defendant was convicted of simple escape and sentenced to five years

at hard labor, to run consecutively to an earlier sentence. This court vacated the

conviction and sentence and remanded the matter. State v. Savoy, 08-1444

(La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/09), 11 So.3d 1184. In the new trial, Defendant was again

convicted of simple escape and sentenced to five years at hard labor, to run

consecutively to his prior sentence. The State then filed a multiple offender bill.

Defendant filed a motion to quash the multiple offender bill on June 24, 2010. The

trial court denied the motion without comment on June 30, 2010. Defendant was

adjudicated a third felony offender and sentenced to the maximum term of ten

years at hard labor, to run consecutively to the earlier sentence.

Defendant appealed again; this court found his habitual offender

sentence excessive and remanded the matter for resentencing. State v. Savoy, 10-

1140 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/11/11), 64 So.3d 457. The supreme court granted the

State‟s writ and reinstated the trial court‟s ten-year sentence. State v. Savoy, 11-

1174, 2012 (La. 7/2/12), __ So.3d __. The supreme court, however, also remanded

the matter to this court for consideration of Defendant‟s pro se assignment of error

of vindictive and selective prosecution on the multiple offender bill based on North

Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct 2072 (1969) and Blackledge v. Perry,

417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 2098 (1974).

Defendant‟s entire argument to this court is:

Appellant argues that he was vindictavly [sic] and
selectively prosecuted by a bill of information being filed
charging appellant with being a third felony offender
after being convicted of being a principal to the escape of
Jacob Shaw who is a career offender and a sex offender
but was not subject to a bill of information charging him
with being a multiple offender and was in fact sentenced
to minimum. Appellant contends the conviction for
being a third felony offender should be vacated.

He offers no further argument, and he cites no authority for this contention.

The supreme court‟s opinion believed this court “found that defendant

warranted a shorter term of imprisonment not because it found that the sentence he

received was grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense but because the

punishment appeared grossly disproportionate to the sentence imposed on Jacob

Shaw.” Savoy, __ So.3d at __. Defendant‟s own argument makes the same

comparison; he provides no support for his allegation other than to compare the

filing of his multiple bill to the lack of a multiple bill against Shaw.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The defendant bears the burden of proving
prosecutorial vindictiveness. State v. Darensbourg, 06-
572 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/06), 948 So.2d 1128. In
determining whether there has been prosecutorial
vindictiveness, the court examines the state‟s actions in
the context of the entire proceeding. Id. If, to a
reasonable mind, the filing of the habitual offender bill
can only be explained by a desire to deter or punish the
defendant‟s exercise of legal rights, the events in the case
will create a presumption of vindictiveness. Id.

The district attorney has the discretionary power to
charge a defendant under the habitual offender law just as
he has the initial unlimited power to prosecute “whom,
when, and how” he chooses. State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d
1276, 1279 (La.1993); LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 61. The district
attorney‟s use of the habitual offender laws “provides an
ancillary sentencing factor designed to serve important
and legitimate societal purposes.” State v. Orange, 02-
711 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/11/03), 845 So.2d 570, 578, writs
denied, 03-1352 (La.5/21/04), 874 So.2d 161, and 03-
2195 (La.7/2/04), 877 So.2d 137. The use of the habitual
offender law alone does not create a presumption of
prosecutorial vindictiveness. Id.

State v. Dauzart, 07-15, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/15/07), 960 So.2d 1079, 1084-85.

Defendant cites nothing from the record to suggest prosecutorial

vindictiveness or selectivity or establish the State‟s disingenuous motivation for

filing the bill authorized by La.R.S. 15:529.1. Defendant‟s argument is merely that

he was subjected to a multiple bill of information while Shaw was not.

2

Conversely, the record contains considerable evidence of Defendant‟s

“extraordinary prior record by which he appears to have amassed considerably

more than just 13 prior felony convictions in two separate proceedings conducted

five years apart involving . . . „remarkable versatility‟” in the nature of the

offenses. Savoy, __ So.3d at __. This evidence justifies the filing of the multiple

offender bill on non-vindictive grounds.

Review of the record of Defendant‟s first trial indicates Defendant

made a comment at his sentencing hearing that perhaps foreshadowed his

vindictive prosecution claim. In a discussion with the trial judge, Defendant stated,

“last week whenever I had come for the sentencing hearing it was brought to my

attention that the State would agree not to multi bill me if I agreed not to appeal the

sentence . . . Because the multi bill argument was brought up.” However, at that

time and since, Defendant has not offered any evidence to support his claim.

Anyone who has been convicted of a felony “shall be punished” as a

multiple offender when he commits a subsequent felony in Louisiana. La.R.S.

15:529.1. The State was justified by statute in charging Defendant as a multiple

offender, relying on its long list of prior felony convictions. What the State did or

did not decide with regard to Shaw is immaterial to its legal prosecution of

Defendant as a multiple offender.

Defendant‟s pro se claim of vindictive and selective prosecution lacks

merit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant‟s conviction and sentence are

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

3