Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Badeaux

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

June 4, 2018

STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
SHANE BADEAUX

          On Appeal from the 17th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafourche, State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 560739 The Honorable F. Hugh Larose, Judge Presiding

          Kristine Russell District Attorney Joseph S. Soignet Assistant District Attorney Thibodaux, Louisiana Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee, State of Louisiana.

          Holli Herrle-Castillo Marrero, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellant, Shane Badeaux.

          Shane Badeaux Cottonport, Louisiana Defendant/Appellant, In Proper Person.

          BEFORE: GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, AND CRAIN, JJ.

          CRAIN, J.

         In State v. Badeaux, 17-0027, 2017WL2399365 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/2/17), this court affirmed the convictions and sentences of the defendant, Shane Badeaux, on counts of aggravated flight from an officer and possession of a firearm or carrying concealed weapons by a felon. While that appeal was pending, the state filed a habitual offender bill of information, and the defendant was adjudicated a fourth or subsequent felony offender as to each count. The district court vacated the original sentences and sentenced the defendant to ten years at hard labor on the count of aggravated flight from an officer, and forty years at hard labor on the count of possession of a firearm by a felon, to be served consecutively and without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.[1] We affirm the habitual offender adjudications and, due to sentencing error, vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing.

         FACTS

         The habitual offender bill of information alleged the following predicate felony convictions, in addition to the convictions affirmed in the prior appeal: (1) June 19, 1998 conviction of simple burglary under 17th Judicial District Court (JDC) docket number 311, 843; (2) June 19, 1998 conviction of simple burglary under 17th JDC docket number 310, 804; (3) November 18, 2004 conviction of possession of a Schedule IV controlled dangerous substance under 24th JDC docket number 44, 639; (4) November 18, 2004 conviction of possession of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance under 24th JDC docket number 44, 639; (5) November 18, 2004 conviction of attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 24th JDC docket number 44, 639; (6) September 12, 2013 conviction of attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 17th JDC docket 17th JDC docket number 516, 84O.[2]

         HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION

         In his sole counseled assignment of error, the defendant contends the trial court erred in adjudicating him a fourth or subsequent felony offender, arguing the state failed to present sufficient evidence to identify him as the person convicted of the predicate offenses.

         To obtain a multiple-offender adjudication, the state is required to establish both the prior felony conviction and the defendant's identity as the person who committed the prior felony. State v. White, 13-1525 (La. 11/8/13), 130 So.3d 298, 300 (per curiam). The Habitual Offender Act does not require the state to use a specific type of evidence to carry its burden of proof. State v. Payton, 00-2899 (La. 3/15/02), 810 So.2d 1127, 1132. Rather, the prior convictions may be proved by any competent evidence, including testimony from witnesses, expert opinion regarding the fingerprints of the defendant when compared with those in the prior record, photographs in the duly authenticated record, or evidence of identical driver's license number, sex, race, and date of birth. See Payton, 810 So.2d at 1130-32.

         At the habitual offender hearing, the state introduced the testimony of Agent Brandon Allemand of the Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole. Agent Allemand stated he knew the defendant, supervised his parole following a prior conviction, and testified at the defendant's trial on the most birth date, social security number, and photograph. The state then proceeded to introduce documentary evidence as to each predicate alleged in the habitual offender bill of information. Agent Allemand testified all of the evidence matched the defendant's identifying information.

         The trial court did not err in finding the state presented sufficient evidence to establish the defendant as the person who pled guilty to the prior felony offenses. The defendant argues the state failed to offer fingerprint evidence, and Agent Allemand did not supervise all the predicate convictions. However, the state was not required to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.