- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
STATE v. PARKER, 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98)
Factual and Procedural Background
This matter concerns State of Louisiana v. Gerald Parker, No. 98-KP-0256, a writ application to the Supreme Court of Louisiana from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court granted the writ and reinstated Parker's conviction for second degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for 40 years. The record indicates Parker filed a post-conviction type filing in the district court (Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Div. "A", No. 257-525) that the Court found did not allege an illegal term of sentence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Parker's filing below alleged a legally cognizable illegal term in his sentence such that it could be considered a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
- Whether La.C.Cr.P. art. 882's "at any time" language applied to Parker's filing.
- Whether the three-year prescriptive period of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 applies to Parker's claim.
- Whether Parker's late realization of trial error constitutes the discovery of a new fact under La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A) to avoid prescription.
- Whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the verdict.
- Whether trial counsel's failure to object to jury instructions, responsive verdict forms, or the verdict waived any claim.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State ex rel. Stepter v. Whitley, 93-2346 (La. 10/13/95), 661 So.2d 480 | Distinction between motions to correct illegal sentence and claims of trial error; application of prescription rules for post-conviction relief. | The Court relied on Stepter to hold that Parker's filing was not cognizable under article 882's "at any time" provision and that the three-year prescriptive period of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 applies. |
| State v. Dauzat, 392 So.2d 393, 396 (La. 1980) | Standard for sufficiency of evidence supporting a criminal verdict. | The Court cited Dauzat to conclude that the evidence adduced at trial more than amply supported the verdict. |
| State ex rel. Elaire v. Blackburn, 424 So.2d 246, 251-52 (La. 1982) | Failure of trial counsel to object constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal or post-conviction review. | The Court applied Elaire to find that counsel's failure to object to jury instructions, responsive verdict forms, or the verdict waived Parker's claim. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reasoned that Parker's filing below did not point to an illegal term in his sentence and therefore did not raise a claim cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Rather, the filing raised alleged trial error, which, if cognizable at all, is properly brought via an application for post-conviction relief. Applying State ex rel. Stepter v. Whitley, the Court concluded that La.C.Cr.P. art. 882's "at any time" language was inapplicable and that La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8's three-year prescriptive period governed. The Court further determined that Parker's belated realization that an error may have occurred at trial did not constitute the discovery of a new fact under La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A), and thus the application was untimely. Separately, the Court found that the trial evidence sufficiently supported the verdict (citing State v. Dauzat) and that any claim was waived because trial counsel did not object to the jury instructions, responsive verdict forms, or the verdict (citing State ex rel. Elaire v. Blackburn).
Holding and Implications
Writ granted; conviction and sentence reinstated.
Direct effect: The Supreme Court reinstated Parker's conviction for second degree murder and his life sentence as previously imposed. The Court applied existing precedent to resolve prescription and waiver issues; the opinion resolves Parker's filing as untimely and without merit but does not announce a new legal principle beyond its application of cited authorities.
Writ granted. See per curiam.
JTK
WFM
JPV
CDT
CALOGERO, C.J. would grant and docket.
LEMMON, J. would grant and docket.
KIMBALL, J. not on panel.
JOHNSON, J. would grant and docket.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal
PER CURIAM:[fn*] [fn*] Kimball, J., not on panel. See Rule IV, Part II, Sec. 3.
Writ granted: conviction for second degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for 40 years reinstated. Because Parker's filing below did not point to a claimed illegal term in his sentence, he did not raise a claim cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Instead, he raised a claim of trial error properly cognizable in an application for post-conviction relief if at all. Accordingly, the "at any time" language of La.C.Cr.P. art. 882 does not apply to Parker's filing and the three-year prescriptive period of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 applies instead. See State ex rel. Stepter v. Whitley, 93-2346 (La. 10/13/95), 661 So.2d 480. Further, because Parker's late realization that an error may have occurred at trial does not qualify as the discovery of a new fact for purposes of the exception set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A),cf. R.S. 14:17; La.C.C. art. 5, Parker's application arrived before the district court untimely.
In any event, because evidence adduced at trial more than amply supported the verdict returned, Parker's claim fails on the merits. State v. Dauzat, 392 So.2d 393, 396 (La. 1980). Finally, trial counsel failed to object to jury instructions, responsive verdict forms, or verdict, and so waived any claim. State ex rel. Elaire v. Blackburn, 424 So.2d 246, 251-52 (La. 1982).
Alert