State of Louisiana v. Orlando Brown

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: May 20, 2025
• Docket: 2023-KA-0691
• Status: Published

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2023-KA-0691

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL ORLANDO BROWN * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 552-786, SECTION “C” Honorable Benedict J. Willard ****** Judge Monique G. Morial ****** (Court composed of Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott, Judge Monique G. Morial)

JENKINS, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS

JASON ROGER WILLIAMS DISTRICT ATTORNEY-ORLEANS PARISH Patricia Amos, Assistant District Attorney 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR STATE/APPELLEE

Lieu Thi Vo Clark LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT P. O. Box 465 Mandeville, LA 70470-0465

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING MAY 20, 2025 Defendant, Orlando Brown (“Defendant”), appeals his sentences for MGM attempted battery upon a dating partner involving strangulation in violation of La. NEK R.S. 14:27 and 14:34.9(L), and third degree rape in violation of La. R.S. 14:43. For

the following reasons, we affirm Defendant’s convictions, vacate Defendant’s

sentences, and remand for resentencing.

Statement of the Case

On November 9, 2021, the State of Louisiana filed a bill of information

charging Defendant with battery upon a dating partner involving strangulation in

violation of La. R.S. 14:34.9(L)(count one) and second degree rape in violation of

La. R.S. 14:42.1(count two), for crimes committed on or about August 28, 2021.

Defendant pled not guilty to the charges. The matter proceeded to a twelve-person

jury trial on March 15, 2023. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Defendant

guilty of the responsive verdicts of attempted battery upon a dating partner

involving strangulation in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and 14:34.9(L) on count one,

and third degree rape in violation of La. R.S. 14:43 on count two. Defendant filed a

1 motion for new trial on March 23, 2023, which the trial court denied on the same

date. The State subsequently filed a bill of information alleging Defendant to be a

multiple offender. Defendant moved to quash the multiple bill, which the trial

court granted.

On March 30, 2023, Defendant filed a post-verdict judgment of acquittal.

On that same date, the trial judge sentenced Defendant to eighteen months at hard

labor for his attempted battery upon a dating partner involving strangulation

conviction, and to twenty-five years at hard labor for his third-degree rape

conviction, with the sentences to run concurrently. After sentencing, the trial judge

denied Defendant’s motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal.

On May 1, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence.1

Defendant thereafter filed a motion for appeal, which the trial court granted on

June 15, 2023.2 The trial court failed to rule on the filed and pending motion for

reconsideration of sentence before granting Defendant’s motion for appeal. On

December 1, 2023, approximately six months after the filing of the motion to

reconsider sentence, the trial court denied Defendant’s motion to reconsider

sentence.

1 There are two motions to reconsider filed in the record, discussed infra. The first motion to

reconsider sentence was timely filed on May 1, 2023; the subsequent motion to reconsider sentence was filed untimely on June 14, 2023. 2 There is a discrepancy in the record as to the date on which the motion for appeal was granted.

The minutes reflect the motion for appeal was granted on June 14, 2023, whereas the order of appeal is signed “July” 15, 2023, with a handwritten notation dating the order as signed on June 15, 2023. This discrepancy does not affect our analysis of the issues on appeal.

2 Facts

Defendant was in an “on-again, off-again relationship” with S.E.3, the

victim, for approximately eight years. In late August 2021, the pair had a

disagreement and severed their relationship. S.E. testified that approximately two

days after the break-up, she awakened to Defendant kicking her bed with a knife in

each hand. He forced her into the bathroom where he placed a pillow over S.E.’s

head and told her to get naked. S.E. testified that when she refused, Defendant

began choking her, which brought her to her knees. S.E. refused several times, but

Defendant forcibly removed her robe and forced her out of the apartment.

S.E. testified that she ran outside naked hoping to escape Defendant, but he

forced her back inside the apartment. He walked her back into the bedroom, forced

her onto the bed, and forced sexual intercourse. S.E. subsequently reported the

crime to the police, and on September 11, 2021, Defendant was arrested for second

degree rape and battery, involving strangulation, upon a dating partner.

Law and Analysis

Initially, we note that the State, in its brief to this Court, contends that

Defendant’s appeal is untimely and should be dismissed. The State contends that

Defendant failed to file a motion for appeal or a motion to reconsider sentence

within thirty days from the date of the imposition of his sentence as required under

La. C.Cr.P. arts. 881.1(A)(1)4 and 914(B).5 However, a review of the record

3 In accordance with La. R.S. 46:1844(W)(1)(a), we will refer to Defendant’s victim by her

initials to protect her identity.

3 reflects that Defendant did in fact file a timely motion to reconsider sentence in

accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(A)(1) within thirty days from imposition of

sentence.6

Although Defendant did timely file his motion to reconsider sentence, the

trial judge did not rule on that motion until December 1, 2023—after the trial judge

granted the subsequently filed motion and order for appeal. We find that the trial

judge erred in granting the motion for appeal prior to disposing of the motion to

reconsider sentence and, consequently, Defendant’s appeal was prematurely

granted. However, the record on appeal has been supplemented with the trial

court’s subsequent December 1, 2023 ruling on Defendant’s motion to reconsider

sentence and the transcript from the hearing on the motion to reconsider sentence.7

Under certain circumstances, a premature appeal need not be dismissed when

“[d]ismissing the appeal would simply result in a delay of the appellate process,

4 La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(A) provides:

A. (1) In felony cases, within thirty days following the imposition of sentence or within such longer period as the trial court may set at sentence, the state or the defendant may make or file a motion to reconsider sentence. 5 La. C.Cr.P. art. 914(B) provides:

B. The motion for an appeal must be made no later than: (1) Thirty days after the rendition of the judgment or ruling from which the appeal is taken. (2) Thirty days from the ruling on a motion to reconsider sentence filed pursuant to Article 881.1, should such a motion be filed. 6 The trial court sentenced defendant on March 30, 2023, and Defendant filed his initial motion

to reconsider on May 1, 2023. The last day of the thirty-day statutory period referenced in La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(A)(1) was April 29, 2023, which was a Saturday. La. C.Cr.P. art. 13 provides: “In computing a period of time allowed or prescribed by law ... [t]he last day of the period is to be included, unless it is a legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a legal holiday.” This Court has further found that, “[u]nder La. R.S. 1:55(A)(1) and (2), Sunday is a legal holiday, and, in certain parishes, including Orleans parish, Saturday is a legal holiday.” State v. Delatte, 22-0218, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/11/22), 340 So.3d 157, 158. Thus, we find that Defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence, filed on May 1, 2023, was timely filed. The record further reflects that Defendant filed a second motion to reconsider sentence on June 14, 2023, more than thirty days from imposition of his sentence. Therefore, the second motion to reconsider sentence filed was untimely. The record on appeal reflects that the trial judge failed to rule on Defendant’s June 14, 2023 motion to reconsider. 7 Under La. C.Cr.P. art. 916(3), the trial court maintained jurisdiction to rule on Defendant’s

motion to reconsider sentence after the appeal had been granted.

4 and hinder defendant’s right to appeal.” State v. Landrieu, 18-0964, p. 6 (La. App.

4 Cir. 6/12/19), 274 So.3d 661, 667 (quoting State v. Martin, 483 So.2d 1223, 1225

La. App. 4th Cir. 1986)); see also State v. Washington, 98-69, p. 4 (La. App. 5 Cir.

1/26/99), 727 So.2d 673, 675. Under the facts of this case, we decline to dismiss

Defendant’s appeal.

On appeal, Defendant challenges only the denial of his motion to reconsider

sentence and the excessiveness of his sentence for his third degree rape conviction.

Upon an errors patent review of the record on appeal, however, we find an error

patent that requires this Court to vacate Defendant’s sentences and remand to the

district court for resentencing. Accordingly, we pretermit discussion of

Defendant’s assignments of errors on appeal.

Errors Patent

Prior to reviewing the merits of this appeal, this Court is tasked with

examining the record for any errors patent in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 920.

The record reflects the following error patent that requires corrective action:

The record reflects that the trial judge sentenced Defendant before ruling on

his pending post-verdict judgment of acquittal. La. C.Cr.P. art. 821(A) requires that

a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal “be made and disposed of before

sentence.” A trial court’s failure to dispose of a timely filed motion for post-verdict

judgment of acquittal is an error patent on the record requiring a defendant’s

sentence to be vacated, and the matter remanded for resentencing. Accordingly,

we vacate Defendant’s sentences and remand this matter to the trial court for

resentencing. See State v. Cavalier, 14-0579, pp. 19-20 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/9/15),

171 So.3d 1117, 1129-1130; State v. Boyd, 11-1129, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir.

11/21/12), 104 So.3d 642, 646; State v. Ashford, 03-1691, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir.

5 6/16/04), 878 So.2d 798, 802; and State v. Anderson, 99-1407, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir.

1/26/00), 753 So.2d 321, 324.8

Decree

For the reasons provided herein, we affirm Defendant’s convictions, vacate

Defendant’s sentences, and remand for the trial court to rule on Defendant’s

motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal and for resentencing. Defendant’s

right to appeal any adverse ruling on his motion, or his new sentence, is preserved.

See State v. Short, 22-263, p. 2 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/27/23), 359 So.3d 1004, 1006.

Moreover, because a review of the record reflects that a second written motion to

reconsider sentence was filed on June 14, 2023, and not ruled upon, the trial court

is hereby ordered to rule on the outstanding June 14, 2023 motion to reconsider

CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING

8 We pretermit discussion of any additional errors patent because Defendant’s sentences are

vacated by way of this opinion. Any additional errors patent concerning Defendant’s sentencing are, thus, moot.