State of Louisiana v. Lawrence Akeem Blade

DO NOT PUBLISH

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-721

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

LAWRENCE AKEEM BLADE

************

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 303,482
HONORABLE THOMAS M. YEAGER, JUDGE

************

J. DAVID PAINTER
JUDGE

************

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Billy Howard Ezell, and J. David Painter,
Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED;
CASE REMANDED.
Edward K. Bauman
P.O. Box 1641
Lake Charles, LA 70602
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:
Lawrence Akeem Blade

James C. Downs
District Attorney
John T. Giordano
Assistant District Attorney
Post Office Drawer 1472
Alexandria, LA 71309
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

PAINTER, Judge

Defendant appeals the sentence imposed in connection with his conviction

for six counts of aggravated assault with a firearm. For the following reasons,

Defendant’s convictions and sentences are vacated and the case is remanded to the

trial court for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 19, 2010, Defendant, Lawrence Akeem Blade, and his friends were

involved in a verbal dispute with a group of boys at the Alexandria mall which

continued to the parking lot. Brothers TyMichael and Michael Robinson were part

of the other group, and Defendant testified he had a rocky relationship with them.

The groups dispersed, and Defendant and his group went to his cousin’s house

where they obtained a shotgun and a pistol. Although there are differing accounts

regarding the details of what happened next, the groups ended up in a second

encounter near the corner of two streets. Defendant and one of his friends fired the

guns they obtained from Defendant’s cousin. A bystander and one of the Robinson

brothers were injured.

Defendant was originally charged along with three codefendants with seven

counts of attempted first degree murder. The bill of information was later amended

to charge seven counts of attempted second degree murder. A jury acquitted

Defendant of count one and convicted him of aggravated assault with a firearm on

counts two through seven. For each of those offenses, he was sentenced to serve

two and one-half years at hard labor to run consecutively. Defendant is before this

court appealing his sentences.

1

DISCUSSION

Errors Patent

Pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors

patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find an error patent

which requires that Defendant’s convictions and sentences be vacated.

The verdicts returned by the jury on counts two through seven were not

responsive to the charged offenses. Near the close of trial, the judge instructed the

jury that the responsive verdicts that could be returned on the charges of attempted

second degree murder were attempted manslaughter, aggravated battery, and not

guilty. Later, during deliberations, the jury was returned to the courtroom and

instructed, at the request of defense counsel, that aggravated assault with a firearm

was also a responsive verdict. The State had no objection. The judge defined

aggravated assault with a firearm for the jury, and an updated verdict sheet

including this offense was provided to the jury. The jury continued deliberating

and ultimately found Defendant guilty of six counts of aggravated assault with a

firearm.

The responsive verdicts for attempted second degree murder mandated by

La.Code Crim.P. art. 814 are: guilty, guilty of attempted manslaughter, guilty of

aggravated battery, and not guilty. In State v. Thibodeaux, 380 So.2d 59 (La.1980),

Defendant was charged with distribution of amobarbital and secobarbital and was

convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance.

On appeal, the supreme court held:

Under Article 814 A(45) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
only responsive verdicts which may be rendered to the charge of
distribution of controlled dangerous substances are the following:

“Guilty

2

“Guilty of Attempted production, manufacture, distribution or
dispensation of [a] controlled dangerous [substance].

“Guilty of Possession of controlled dangerous substances.

“Guilty of Attempted possession of controlled dangerous substances.”

“Not guilty.”

When responsive verdicts are mandated by Article 814, the trial court
is without authority to vary or to add to the prescribed verdicts. State
v. Simmons, 357 So.2d 517 (La.1978).

The trial court, however, submitted to the jury before it retired
for deliberation a list of responsive verdicts which included two
verdicts which are not responsive under Article 814 A(45), i.e.,
possession with intent to distribute and attempted possession with
intent to distribute. There was no objection by defendant to the
charges and the jury following the trial court’s instructions returned a
verdict of guilty of possession with intent to distribute a controlled
dangerous substance.

Although this Court has held that absent an objection,
deficiencies in the responsive verdicts can not be availed of upon
appeal, in those cases the error existed only in the list of possible
verdicts submitted to the jury and not in the actual verdict returned by
the jury. In State v. Turner, 337 So.2d 1090 (La.1976) we held that an
alleged error concerning the sufficiency of the list of responsive
verdicts submitted to the jury may not be considered unless an
objection is made in the trial court in time for the trial judge to correct
the error. In Turner, however, despite the error in the list of verdicts
submitted to it, the jury did in fact return a verdict which was
responsive to the offense charged.

In the instant case not only were the list of verdicts and the
judge’s charge incorrect, but the jury actually returned a verdict which
was not responsive under Article 814 A(45). Although the jury’s non-
responsive verdict was induced by the trial court’s unobjected to
erroneous instructions, we find that the verdict is clearly non-
responsive and therefore should have been refused by the trial court in
accordance with Article 813.

....

Code of Criminal Procedure article 920(2) provides that this
Court shall consider on appeal “an error that is discoverable by a mere
inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of
the evidence.” The jury’s verdict is part of the pleadings which this
Court must review for errors. State v. Egena, 347 So.2d 1106
(La.1977). Because the verdict was invalid and because a sentence

3

based on an invalid verdict is itself invalid (La. C.Cr.P. art. 872), the
conviction and sentence of defendant must be set aside.

Id. at 60-61 (footnotes omitted). See also State v. Major, 597 So.2d 108 (La.App. 4

Cir. 1992), where the fourth circuit reversed a criminal trespass conviction because

it was not responsive to the charge of simple burglary; State v. Hurst, 10-1204

(La.App. 3 Cir. 4/13/11), 62 So.3d 327, writ denied, 11-975 (La.10/21/11), 73

So.3d 383; and State v. Norman, 03-248 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/03), 848 So.2d 91,

writ denied, 03-1934, 03-1938 (La. 1/9/04), 862 So.2d 981, 982.

Therefore, we vacate Defendant’s convictions and sentences on counts two

through seven and remand for further proceedings.

Excessive Sentence:

Defendant contends that his six consecutive sentences are excessive because

they arose out of the same occurrence and becauseDefendant has no prior criminal

record. This assignment of error is rendered moot by the vacation of Defendant’s

convictions and sentences.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s convictions and sentences for six counts of aggravated assault

with a firearm are vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCES VACATED; CASE REMANDED.

4