State ex rel. Brisco v. Court of Appeal, First Circuit

521 So. 2d 396, 1988 La. LEXIS 625, 1988 WL 15689
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 29, 1988
DocketNo. 86-KH-2547
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 521 So. 2d 396 (State ex rel. Brisco v. Court of Appeal, First Circuit) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Brisco v. Court of Appeal, First Circuit, 521 So. 2d 396, 1988 La. LEXIS 625, 1988 WL 15689 (La. 1988).

Opinion

MARCUS, Justice.

Larry W. Brisco was charged by bill of information with two counts of attempted second degree murder in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 & 14:30.1. After trial by jury, defendant was found guilty of attempted manslaughter on both counts. Thereafter, the trial judge sentenced him to serve six years at hard labor on each count and enhanced each sentence under La.R.S. 14:95.2 by an additional two years without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. He directed the sentences to be served concurrently with each other and with any other charges pending against defendant in this state. The court of appeal affirmed and amended defendant’s sentences by increasing them to the statutorily required minimum provided by La. Code Crim.P. art. 893.11 and by other amendments not pertinent here.2 This court granted defendant’s application for a writ of review and reversed that portion of the court of appeal’s judgment which increased his sentences and reinstated the sentences imposed by the trial court.3 Defendant filed an application for post-conviction relief claiming that the bill of information which charged him with two counts of attempted second degree murder did not notify him that La.R.S. 14:95.2 would be applied to enhance his sentences. The trial judge denied relief finding that defendant’s claims were without merit. The court of appeal denied his application for writs finding that the penalties imposed under La.R. S. 14:95.2 were permissible because the bill of information charged defendant with the use of a firearm. On defendant’s application, we granted certiorari to determine whether charging the use of a firearm in the bill of information in connection with the commission of the crime adequately notified defendant that he would be subject to the enhanced sentencing provisions of La.R.S. 14:95.2 upon conviction.4

Under the United States and Louisiana Constitutions, a criminal defendant is guaranteed due process of law and notice of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. U.S. ConstAmend. XIV, § 1; La. Const, art. 1, § 2; U.S. ConstAmend. VI; La. Const, art. 1, § 13. In conformity with the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the accusation against him, La.Code Crim.P. art. 464 provides for the nature and contents of an indictment:5 [398]*398Nonetheless, La.R.S. 14:95.2 does not create a separate offense. The statute provides additional penalties for the use of a firearm or explosive device in the commission or attempted commission of specified felonies.6 Accordingly, this court held that the state was not required to separately charge a defendant under La.R.S. 14:95.2 in order for the additional penalties to be imposed. State v. Roussel, 424 So.2d 226 (La.1982). This court overruled its decision in Roussel reasoning that although La.R.S. 14:95.2 does not define a fully independent crime, it does define criminal activity and does provide for an independent or supplemental penalty. Accordingly, we held that the accused must be informed in the bill of information or indictment of the nature and cause of the accusation against him in order to be subject to the enhanced penalty provisions for use of a firearm in the commission of certain enumerated crimes under La.R.S. 14:95.2. State v. Jackson, 480 So.2d 263 (La.1985).

[397]*397The indictment shall be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall state for each count the official or customary citation of the statute which the defendant is alleged to have violated. Error in the citation or its omission shall not be ground for dismissal of the indictment or for reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice. [Emphasis added.]

[398]*398Defendant contends that the bill of information charging him with two counts of attempted second degree murder did not inform him of the additional two-year penalty for the use of a firearm in the commission of the crime. The bill of information alleged in count one that defendant attempted to kill Lisa Weber with a .22 caliber revolver. In count two, it was alleged that defendant attempted to kill Joseph Weber with a .22 caliber revolver. These allegations did not state that defendant would be subject to additional penalties for the use of the .22 caliber revolver in the commission of the crimes charged.

We hold that the additional penalties for the use of a firearm or explosive device in the commission or attempted commission of an enumerated felony under La. R.S. 14:95.2 may not be imposed on an accused unless it is charged in a separate count of the indictment or information. This separate charge must inform defendant of the substance of La.R.S. 14:95.2, namely, that additional penalties will be imposed for the use of a firearm or explosive device upon conviction of an enumerated felony. In addition, it should state the official or customary citation of the statute; however, error in the citation or its omission will not preclude the enhancement of the sentence under La.R.S. 14:95.2.

In the instant case, the bill of information did not provide a separate charge informing defendant that additional penalties would be imposed for the use of a firearm upon conviction of an enumerated felony. Accordingly, defendant was not sufficiently informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and the additional two-year penalties enhancing defendant’s sentences must be vacated.

DECREE

For the reasons assigned, the additional two-year penalties enhancing defendant’s sentences are vacated.

COLE, J., respectfully dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Sanders
523 So. 2d 209 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
521 So. 2d 396, 1988 La. LEXIS 625, 1988 WL 15689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-brisco-v-court-of-appeal-first-circuit-la-1988.