State of Louisiana v. Scott Keith Broussard A/K/A Scott K Broussard A/K/A Scott Broussard

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

25-705

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

SCOTT KEITH BROUSSARD

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERMILION, NUMBER CR 70768
HONORABLE THOMAS J. FREDERICK, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CLAYTON DAVIS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Gary J. Ortego, and Clayton Davis, Judges.

SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED.

Hon. Donald Dale Landry
15th JDC DA Lafayette
P. O. Box 3306
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 232-5170
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE
State of Louisiana

Shay A. Hargrave
Calvin E. Woodruff, Jr.
ADA 15th JDC Vermilion Parish
100 N. State Street, Ste. 215
Abbeville, LA 70510
(337) 898-4320
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE
State of Louisiana

Remy Voisin Starns
Office of the State Public Defender, LAWS
301 Main Street, Suite 700
Baton Rouge, LA 70825
(225) 219-9305
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
Scott Keith Broussard

Corrie R. Gallien
Gallien Law, PLLC
1030 Lafayette St., Ste. 12
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 761-1585
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
Scott Keith Broussard

DAVIS, Judge.

Trial against Defendant, Scott Keith Broussard, began on December 3, 2024.

On the following day, by a unanimous vote, the jury returned the following guilty

verdicts:

molestation of a juvenile,
two counts of first degree rape,
three counts of attempted indecent behavior with a juvenile,
attempted second degree rape,
sexual battery,
intimidating a witness, and
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

A few months later, defense counsel submitted a Motion for Post Verdict

Judgment of Acquittal and a Motion for New Trial, both of which were denied by

the trial court. Sentencing delays were waived, and the defendant was sentenced to

the above crimes.

The defendant appeals his convictions and sentences. In accordance with

La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors patent on the face of

the record. The trial court did not address the defendant’s pro se “Motion to

Reconsider Verdict and Motion for New Trial.” As a result, we find an error patent

that requires us to vacate the sentences and remand the case to allow the trial court

to address this motion. If that motion is denied, the defendant should be resentenced.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 853, 821, and 861 require that

motions for new trial, post-verdict judgment of acquittal, and arrest of judgment be

disposed of prior to sentencing. On December 16, 2024, the defendant filed a pro se

“Motion to Reconsider Verdict and Motion for New Trial.” The judge set it for a

contradictory hearing. Court minutes of February 6, 2025, show that the defendant

appeared in court represented by counsel, but counsel did not adopt the pro se

motion. It was not considered. Eventually, sentencing was set for May 20, 2025.

Prior to sentencing, the court heard and denied defense counsel’s motion for new

trial and a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal.

An affidavit from the trial court clerk’s office confirmed that the defendant’s

pro se motion was not addressed. The claims raised in the pro se motion and in

counsel’s motions were not identical.

In State v. Miller, 24-672 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/21/25), 416 So.3d 691, the

defendant filed a pro se motion for new trial which was not ruled on by the time he

filed his appeal. He raised the issue on appeal. The State conceded that the case

should be remanded for a ruling, and, if the motion was denied, resentencing. This

court discussed the issue as follows:

In State v. Freeman, 15-251 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/7/15), 175 So.3d
1104, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence
presented at trial as well as the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial
based on a comment made by the prosecutor. In its error patent review,
this court stated:

In some cases where the trial court has failed to rule
on a motion for judgment of acquittal before sentencing,
the appellate courts have chosen to affirm or conditionally
affirm a defendant’s conviction and remand for disposition
of the motion for judgment of acquittal with full
reservation of the defendant’s right to re-institute his
appeal in the event that the trial court denied the motion.
See State v. Lewis, 04-1074 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/6/05), 916
So.2d 294, writ denied, 05-2382 (La. 3/31/06), 925 So.2d
1257; State v. Pursell, 04-1775 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/6/05),
915 So.2d 871.

However, in State v. Leonard, 99-800 (La.App. 3
Cir. 2/2/00), 758 So.2d 238, this court determined that the
appropriate remedy was to pretermit discussion of the
defendant’s assignments of error, vacate the defendant’s
sentence, and remand the case for disposition of the
motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal, and, if
necessary, resentencing. The court also noted the
defendant’s right to appeal his conviction and sentence
was preserved. Id. at 240. We observe that more recent
cases from the fifth circuit have taken this approach. See,
e.g., State v. Pettus, 10-742 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/24/11), 66
2

So.3d 1192; State v. Swanzy, 10-483 (La.App. 5 Cir.
6/14/11), 71 So.3d 392. Further, as discussed in Swanzy,
71 So.3d at 394, the issue of sufficiency of the evidence is
at issue in this appeal, and “[s]hould we decide the issue
of sufficiency of evidence, we would effectively render the
motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal moot.”

Accordingly, we vacate the defendant’s sentence
and remand for disposition of his motion for post-verdict
judgment of acquittal. See Leonard, 758 So.2d 238.
Further, should the defendant’s motion be denied, the
defendant shall be resentenced and his right to appeal his
sentence and conviction preserved. Id.

Miller, 416 So.3d at 693.

Likewise, here we must vacate the defendant’s sentences and remand the case

for disposition of his “Motion to Reconsider Verdict and Motion for New Trial” and

resentencing if the motion is denied.

DISPOSITION

Defendant’s sentences are vacated, and the case is remanded for disposition

of Defendant’s pro se “Motion to Reconsider Verdict and Motion for New Trial”

and resentencing if the motion is denied.

SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.

3