No. KA-6467 Precedential Affirmed Processed

State v. Harris

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed July 8, 1987 · 511 So. 2d 803

Cited by

State v. Hackett 122 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Rogers 555 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Alexander 551 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Goodin 550 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Harris 514 So. 2d 127 La. 1987

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Jackson 438 So. 2d 730
State v. Clark 442 So. 2d 460
State v. Sanders 337 So. 2d 1131
State v. Williams 358 So. 2d 943
State v. Cox 344 So. 2d 1024
State v. Jackson 347 So. 2d 172
State v. Siegel 354 So. 2d 525
State v. Whittaker 496 So. 2d 1103
State v. Davis 499 So. 2d 1311
State v. Barnes 503 So. 2d 567

Opinion text

HERBERT A. CADE, Judge Pro Tem. Charles Harris was convicted in a jury trial of simple burglary, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:62 and sentenced to three years at hard labor. Subsequently, defendant was multiple billed, found to be a third offender and resentenced to eight years at hard labor without benefit of parole or good time. In his sole assignment of error, Harris contends the trial judge erred in resentencing him as a third offender. Harris claims that the trial judge predicated his finding on earlier misdemeanor thefts that had already been enhanced to felony thefts (because of earlier theft convictions). According to defendant, because the previous thefts were used in obtaining felony convictions, they have already been enhanced and therefore it was error to allow them to be enhanced again under LSA-R.S. 15:529.1 in the present case. Additionally, defendant argues that our decision in State v. Jackson, 438 So.2d 730 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983), writ denied 442 So.2d 460 (La.1983), was wrongly decided and should be overruled since it conflicts with the Supreme Court’s holdings in State v. Sanders, 337 So.2d 1131 (La.1976); State v. Williams, 358 So.2d 943 (La.1978); State v. Cox, 344 So.2d 1024 (La.1977); State v. Taylor, 347 So.2d 172 (La.1977), and State v. Siegel, 354 So.2d 525 (La.1978). We disagree. Before looking to the merits of defendant’s arguments, we have reviewed the record for errors patent and have found none. 1 Further, we find no merit to defendant’s assignment of error. This court was confronted with a similar question in State v. Whittaker, 496 So.2d 1103 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986) involving enhancement in misdemeanor theft cases. In Whittaker , we permitted enhancement, using as a predicate the felony thefts (accorded felony status because of repeated misdemeanor thefts). We find the Whittaker case controlling in the instant case. Finally, we reject defendant’s assertion that we reexamine our holding in State v. Jackson, supra. The same argument advanced by the defendant in the instant case was argued in State v. Davis, 499 So.2d 1311 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986) and in State v. Howard Barnes, 503 So.2d 567 (La.App. 4th Cir.1987) and rejected by this court. Controlled by our earlier holdings, we find no error in the trial court’s judgment sentencing Charles Harris as a third offender. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are affirmed. AFFIRMED. . The multiple bill hearing in the instant case was held on September 30, 1986, after the motion for appeal in this case was granted. However, LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 916(8), as amended by Acts 1986, No. 851, § 1, which was effective August 30, 1986, vests the trial judge with jurisdiction over the matter.