State of Louisiana v. Jamal James Carmouche

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-1099

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JAMAL JAMES CARMOUCHE

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. CR 136308
HONORABLE MARILYN C. CASTLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, James T. Genovese, and John E. Conery,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Edward K. Bauman
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 1641
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602
(337) 491-0570
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Jamal James Carmouche

Michael Harson
District Attorney—Fifteenth Judicial District
Pat Magee, Assistant District Attorney
Post Office Box 3306
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502
(337) 232-5170
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

GENOVESE, Judge.

In this criminal case, Defendant, Jamal James Carmouche, appeals his

habitual offender adjudication and sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A review of the evidence in the record indicates that on September 18, 2010,

Marcus Despanie was shot and killed. On January 12, 2011, Defendant was

indicted for the second degree murder of Mr. Despanie. Following a trial by jury,

Defendant was found guilty of the responsive verdict of manslaughter and

sentenced to thirty-five years at hard labor with credit for time served. That

conviction and sentence is the subject of a separate appeal.

At the conclusion of the sentencing for his manslaughter conviction, the

State charged Defendant as a habitual offender. Following a habitual offender

hearing, Defendant was adjudicated a fourth felony offender. His previous

thirty-five-year manslaughter sentence was vacated, and he was resentenced to

forty years at hard labor. Defendant is now before this court, appealing his

habitual offender adjudication and sentence; however, he did not assign any errors

for review.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with 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 no

errors patent.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Critical to this appeal, Defendant did not assign any errors with regard to his

habitual offender adjudication and sentence. Consequently, there are no errors or

anything before this court for review.

DISPOSITION

Defendant’s habitual offender adjudication and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

2