State of Louisiana v. Marvin Dixon
This text of State of Louisiana v. Marvin Dixon (State of Louisiana v. Marvin Dixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
16-132
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
MARVIN DIXON
************
APPEAL FROM THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 87,680 HONORABLE SCOTT WESTERCHIL, DISTRICT JUDGE
JIMMIE C. PETERS JUDGE
Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, James T. Genovese, and John E. Conery, Judges.
SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. Edward J, Marquet Louisiana Appellate Project P.O. Box 53733 Lafayette, LA 70505-3733 (337) 237-6841 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Marvin Dixon
Asa A. Skinner District Attorney Terry W. Lambright First Assistant District Attorney Thirtieth Judicial District P.O. Box 1188 Leesville, Louisiana 71446 (337) 239-2008 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana PETERS, J.
The defendant, Marvin Dixon, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of
attempted aggravated crime against nature, a violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and
La.R.S. 14:89.1. He now appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court on the
attempted aggravated crime against nature conviction. For the following reasons,
we vacate the sentence imposed and remand the matter to the trial court for
resentencing.
DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD
The State of Louisiana (state) originally charged the defendant on April 7,
2015, with three counts of aggravated crime against nature, violations of La.R.S.
14:89.1. The three offenses were alleged by the state to have occurred between
July 17, 2008 and July 10, 2010. The defendant’s victim in all three counts was
alleged to have been born on July 10, 1997. Therefore, the alleged victim was
under the age of thirteen years when the offenses were alleged to have occurred.
The defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of attempted aggravated
crime against nature on October 7, 2015, in exchange for the state dismissing the
other two charges. The trial court sentenced him to serve thirty years at hard labor
without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The defendant
argues on appeal that the trial court imposed an illegally excessive sentence. We
agree.
OPINION
At the time the trial court sentenced the defendant, the applicable sentence
for an offender convicted of aggravated crime against nature under the
circumstances of this case was set forth in La.R.S. 14:89.1(C)(2) which reads as
follows: Whoever commits the crime of aggravated crime against nature as defined by Paragraph (A)(2) of this Section with a victim under the age of thirteen years when the offender is seventeen years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for not less than twenty-five years nor more than ninety-nine years. At least twenty- five years of the sentence imposed shall be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
With regard to an attempt to commit the offense of aggravated crime against
nature, La.R.S. 14:27(D)(3) provides that an offender convicted of an attempt to
commit the offense of aggravated crime against nature is subjected to
imprisonment that “shall not exceed . . . one-half of the longest term of
imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted[.]”
Based on the law in effect at the time of the defendant’s sentencing, he could
have been sentenced to a minimum of twelve and one-half years at hard labor, and
a maximum of forty-nine and one-half years at hard labor; and at least twelve and
one-half years of any sentence imposed would be served without the benefit of
parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:89.1 has been amended a number of times
since July of 2010, and these amendments have significantly affected the sentences
that may be imposed for the offense of aggravated crime against nature. Between
July 17, 2008 and July 10, 2010, the penalty for commission of the offense
consisted of one range of incarceration regardless of the underlying facts giving
rise to the charge. That range was set forth in La.R.S. 14:89.1(B) during that time
period and provided that “[w]hoever commits the crime of aggravated crime
against nature shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than three nor more
than fifteen years, such prison sentence to be without benefit of suspension of
sentence, probation or parole.” Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:27(D)(3) read the
same as it does today.
Based on the law in effect at the time of the offense, the defendant’s 2 incarceration exposure was not less than one and one-half years at hard labor, nor
more than seven and one-half years at hard labor. Any sentence imposed was to be
served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The
error before us is that the trial court sentenced the defendant under the version of
La.R.S. 14:89.1 in effect at the time of the sentencing, and the defendant must be
sentenced based on what La.R.S. 14:89.1 provided at the time of the offense. State
v. Sugasti, 01-3407 (La. 6/21/02), 820 So.2d 518.
The sentence imposed by the trial court is illegal in that it exceeds the
statutorily authorized sentence. Although La.Code Crim.P. art. 882(A) gives an
appellate court some authority on review to correct an illegal sentence, that
authority does not extend to a situation where imposition of the sentence involves
the exercise of sentencing discretion. State v. Gregrich, 99-178 (La.App. 3 Cir.
10/13/99), 745 So.2d 694. Where sentencing discretion is involved, the matter
must be remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Id.
DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the sentence imposed in this matter and
remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing pursuant to the sentence
parameters provided in La.R.S. 14:27 and La.R.S. 14:89.1 which were in effect at
the time of the commission of the offense.
SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Louisiana v. Marvin Dixon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-louisiana-v-marvin-dixon-lactapp-2016.