State of Louisiana v. Gerald Lamont Kimble

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 12, 2014
• Docket: KA-0013-0912
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-912

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

GERALD LAMONT KIMBLE

**********

APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 311,172 HONORABLE THOMAS MARTIN YEAGER, DISTRICT JUDGE

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX CHIEF JUDGE

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, John D. Saunders, and Jimmie C. Peters, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

James C. Downs District Attorney - 9th Judicial District Court Harold A. Van Dyke, III Assistant District Attorney – 9th Judicial District Court P. O. Drawer 1472 Alexandria, LA 71309 Telephone: (318) 473-6650 COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiff/Appellee - State of Louisiana

Annette Fuller Roach Louisiana Appellate Project P. O. Box 1747 Lake Charles, LA 70602-1747 Telephone: (337) 436-2900 COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellant - Gerald Lamont Kimble THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

After fatally shooting his brother, Anthony Kimble, the State charged

Defendant, Gerald Lamont Kimble, with second-degree murder under La.R.S.

14:30.1. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to one count of manslaughter

pursuant to a plea agreement with a specific sentencing range of ten to thirty years,

and he was sentenced to twenty years at hard labor. On appeal, Defendant

contends that the sentence was constitutionally excessive. As Defendant is

procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal, we affirm his sentence.

I.

ISSUE

Defendant submits that the trial court’s sentence, which was in

accordance with a valid plea agreement, was constitutionally excessive.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 28, 2012, Defendant, Gerald Lamont Kimble, shot and killed

his brother, Anthony Kimble. Defendant was charged by bill of indictment with

one count of second-degree murder, a violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. After a sanity

evaluation, the trial court found Defendant competent to proceed with trial.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to one count of manslaughter,

a violation of La.R.S. 14:31, which has a maximum sentence of forty years. The

Defendant’s plea agreement contained a specific sentencing range of ten to thirty

years. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty years with hard labor. Defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider Sentence, which the

trial court denied.

III.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Defendant claims that his sentence is constitutionally excessive.

However, Defendant is procedurally barred from raising this claim. Louisiana

Code of Criminal Procedure Article 881.2(A)(2) states that “[t]he defendant cannot

appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement

which was set forth in the record at the time of the plea.” The Louisiana Supreme

Court further held that “the legislature intended [La.Code Crim.P. art. 881.2(A)(2)]

to apply to plea agreements involving both specific sentences and sentencing

caps.” State v. Young, 96-195, p. 5 (La. 10/15/96), 680 So.2d 1171, 1174. In line

with the supreme court’s reasoning, we have held that sentence review is precluded

“when a specific sentence or sentencing range is agreed to by both parties as part of

a plea agreement, and is judicially recognized at the sentencing hearing.” State v.

Goodman, 96-376, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96), 684 So.2d 58, 61.

Here, it is uncontested that Defendant entered into a plea agreement

with the State. Defendant pled guilty in exchange for a charge reduction from

second-degree murder to manslaughter and a specific sentence range of ten to

thirty years. Defendant and the State jointly recommended the sentence range, and

Defendant was sentenced within the terms of his plea agreement. Therefore, he is

now procedurally barred from appealing this issue.

2 IV.

DISPOSITION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant is procedurally barred from

seeking review of his claim. As such, we affirm Defendant’s sentence for

manslaughter.