“Apprendi Errors and the Sentencing-Only Remedy”
A Comprehensive Commentary on State of Louisiana v. Malcolm J. Chester, 2024-K-00207 (La. June 27, 2025)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of Louisiana, in a per curiam opinion, confronted an indictment (bill of information) that omitted a fact— the victim’s age— which elevated the maximum punishment for aggravated crime against nature under La. R.S. 14:89.1. Although the omission violated the constitutional rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Court refused to order a new trial. Instead, it reinstated the conviction and directed the district court to resentence the defendant within the lower statutory range applicable to victims under eighteen but over thirteen.

The decision synthesizes federal constitutional doctrine with Louisiana procedural law and clarifies the appropriate remedy when a charging instrument is Apprendi-defective yet the jury has actually found the enhancing fact. The ruling squarely answers how Louisiana courts must balance notice defects, jury findings, and sentencing exposure.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: The defective bill of information did not necessitate a new trial. The jury’s verdict—finding the victim was under thirteen—was responsive and supported by sufficient evidence. However, because the enhancing fact was not pleaded, sentencing under the harsher provision of La. R.S. 14:89.1(C)(2) was unconstitutional. The Court therefore:

• Reinstated Chester’s conviction for violating La. R.S. 14:89.1(A)(2) (victim under eighteen); and
• Remanded for resentencing within the five-to-twenty-year range of La. R.S. 14:89.1(C)(1).

Chief Justice Weimer and Justice Crain each dissented, arguing the defect was harmless and the original ninety-nine-year sentence should stand. Justice McCallum (joined by Justice Cole) concurred, emphasizing that the trial court exceeded its authority by unilaterally amending the charge during jury instructions.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999) – established that any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the statutory maximum must be alleged, submitted to the jury, and proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• State v. Susan, 357 So.3d 1000 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2023), writ denied, 370 So.3d 1071 (La. 2023) – Louisiana precedent for resentencing rather than retrial when Apprendi error concerns sentencing only.
• State v. Gibson, 38 So.3d 373 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2010) and State v. Gragg, 348 So.3d 254 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2022) – addressed similar age-based enhancements and harmless error analysis.

The Court invoked these authorities to distinguish between (a) a constitutionally defective sentencing and (b) a conviction that remains valid once the jury has actually made the requisite factual finding.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Essential Averment & Notice. Under La. C.Cr.P. art. 464 & 859, the victim’s age is an essential fact because it toggles between two dramatically different sentencing ranges (5–20 years vs. 25–99 years). Omission therefore renders the bill substantially defective.
2. Validity of the Guilty Verdict. Despite the charging defect, the jury was correctly instructed on the higher-grade offense (victim under 13), heard uncontroverted evidence of the victim’s age, and returned a unanimous guilty verdict. The Supreme Court concluded the verdict implicitly covered the lesser-included offense (victim under 18).
3. Remedy Selection. The key innovation of Chester is its remedy: resentencing only. The Court reasoned that (a) the guilty verdict reflects a fact-finding beyond a reasonable doubt, satisfying Apprendi; but (b) because the enhancement was not pleaded, the defendant lacked constitutional notice of the higher penalty. The cure is therefore to impose sentence under the lesser range, not to nullify the verdict.
4. Harmless-Error Debate. The majority rejected the dissenters’ view that plea offers and pre-trial motions supplied adequate notice. Notice must be contained in the charging document itself; external indicators cannot rehabilitate the omission.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation

• Prosecutorial Drafting. District attorneys must now ensure that any age-based or other enhancing facts—and the related penalty provision—appear in the four corners of the indictment.
• Trial-Court Authority. Judges may not amend an information sua sponte to supply missing allegations. Doing so invades the prosecutor’s constitutional domain (La. Const. art. V § 26).
• Appellate Remedies. Louisiana appellate courts are instructed that a new trial is not the automatic remedy for Apprendi charging errors. If the jury actually found the enhancing fact, conviction can stand and resentencing is sufficient.
• Harmless-Error Framework. The decision narrows the availability of Neder harmless-error analysis: lack of notice in the indictment is structural for sentencing, but not for conviction.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Bill of Information

A written charge filed by a district attorney (as opposed to a grand jury indictment) initiating felony prosecution in Louisiana.

Apprendi Rule

Any fact (except a prior conviction) that increases the statutory maximum sentence must (1) be alleged in the charging instrument, (2) be submitted to the jury, and (3) be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Responsive Verdict

Louisiana’s scheme allowing juries to convict of a lesser-included offense listed as responsive to the greater charge.

Harmless Error vs. Structural Error

Harmless errors can be ignored if they did not affect the outcome; structural errors require automatic reversal. Chester treats an Apprendi charging defect as structural for sentencing only, but not for the conviction when the jury has actually found the fact.

5. Conclusion

State v. Chester recalibrates Louisiana’s approach to indictment defects that trigger Apprendi. The Court charts a middle course: convictions obtained with unconstitutional notice are not automatically void if the jury has nevertheless found the crucial fact; yet sentencing must honor the pleaded charge. This sentencing-only remedy promotes finality, respects jury fact-finding, and preserves constitutional notice requirements. As prosecutors revise charging practices and lower courts apply the ruling, Chester will likely become the leading Louisiana precedent on Apprendi compliance, shaping sex-offense prosecutions and any crime with age-based or other statutory enhancements.