State of Louisiana v. Quincy Lee

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: January 27, 2021
• Docket: 53,805-KA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered January 27, 2021. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 53,805-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

QUINCY LEE Appellant

Appealed from the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Bossier, Louisiana Trial Court No. 117,553

Honorable Michael Nerren, Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Douglas Lee Harville

J. SCHUYLER MARVIN Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

JOHN M. LAWRENCE Assistant District Attorney

Before MOORE, PITMAN, and GARRETT, JJ. MOORE, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of simple burglary of an inhabited

dwelling on January 14, 2004. He was subsequently adjudicated a third

felony offender and sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without

benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. The conviction and

sentence were affirmed by this court at State v. Lee, 39,969 (La. App. 2 Cir.

8/17/05), 909 So. 2d 672, writ denied, 06-0247 (La. 9/1/06), 936 So. 2d 195.

On April 18, 2019, Lee filed a pro se “motion to correct illegal

sentence” under La. C. Cr. P. art. 881.5 and the amendments to La. R.S.

15:529.1 and La. R.S. 15:308.1 The matter was set for hearing on August

27, 2019. Counsel was neither appointed to represent Lee nor present at the

hearing. The trial court granted the motion, vacated the previous life

sentence, and without any presentence investigation report (“PSI”), imposed

the maximum sentence of 24 years.

Lee now appeals the sentence as excessive. Because he was not

represented by counsel at resentencing, we vacate the sentence and remand

for appointment of counsel prior to resentencing.

FACTS

At the hearing on Lee’s motion, the judge questioned who represented

the defendant. The indigent defenders present in the courtroom told the

court that they had not been appointed. Lee told the court he prepared the

motion himself without help from anyone.

1 See State ex rel. Esteen v. State, 2016-0949 (La. 1/30/18) (La. R.S. 15:308 mandates retroactive application of more lenient penalties to offenders already sentenced; relief may be sought through motion to correct illegal sentence.) The court found that Lee was entitled to relief under the “Criminal

Reform Package,” and it agreed with Lee’s computation that the new

applicable sentencing range was between 6 and 24 years. The judge said it

was difficult for him to sentence Lee without the benefit of a PSI, and

acknowledged that he did not know anything about him. However, the

judge said he was conservative in the relief he grants. He said,

[A]ll I can do in your case is sentence you to what the – the range is. So instead of life in prison, uh, I resentence you to twenty-four years. I don’t have anything to do other than that. I don’t know anything about you. And I would assume that if what – whatever the original Judge reviewed as far as the appropriate sentence that led to a multi-bill and life in prison would support the max under this schedule. My hands are kind of tied if you understand what I am saying.

Lee noted that the prior habitual offender sentence of life imprisonment was

a mandatory sentence. Under the new provisions, the court has discretion to

impose a sentence within the sentencing range. The court responded that the

new sentence was within the guidelines that Lee presented to him.

DISCUSSION

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “[i]n all

criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ... have the Assistance of Counsel

for his defense.” Similarly, La. Const. art. I, § 13, states that “[a]t each stage

of the proceedings, every person is entitled to assistance of counsel of his

choice, or appointed by the court if he is indigent and charged with an

offense punishable by imprisonment.” See McConnell v. Rhay, 393 U.S. 2,

89 S. Ct. 32, 21 L. Ed. 2d 2 (1968). Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, a

defendant has a right to counsel at every critical stage of criminal

proceedings, including a resentencing hearing. State v. Kelly, 51,246 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 4/5/17), 217 So. 3d 576, 585, writ denied, 17-0755 (La. 5/18/18), 2 242 So. 3d 573; State v. Joseph, 14-1188 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/6/15), 164 So.

3d 389, 391; State v. Price, 06-440 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/16/07), 951 So. 2d

1152, 1153-54; State v. Lefeure, 01-1003 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/15/02), 807 So.

2d 922, 923-924; State v. Kirsch, 01-1017 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/26/02), 815 So.

2d 215, 217.

Unless a defendant has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his

right to counsel, any sentence imposed in the absence of counsel is invalid

and must be vacated. State v. Kelly, supra; State v. Collinsworth, 452 So. 2d

285 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1984) (citing State v. Williams, 374 So. 2d 1215 (La.

1979), and State v. White, 325 So. 2d 584 (La. 1976)); cf. State v. Bryant,

53,078 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/20/19), 285 So. 3d 513 (appointment of counsel

was not warranted at a resentencing hearing where resentencing was merely

a ministerial and nondiscretionary correction of parole eligibility in

defendant’s favor.).

In this case, neither the court nor the assistant district attorney

recognized that the right to counsel applies at resentencing. The assistant

district attorney even appeared to be unaware of the holding in Esteen, supra

at n. 1. Although the motion was filed as a pro se motion, the court never

established, nor does the record show, that Lee knowingly and intelligently

waived his right to counsel. Even if the court believed Lee waived his right

to counsel, it never gave Lee, who had family members present in the

courtroom, any meaningful opportunity to address the court. Instead, it

clearly decided in advance that the maximum sentence was required.

We therefore conclude that Lee’s resentencing from a mandatory life

sentence down to a discretionary sentence with a range of 6 to 24 years

mandated legal representation for the defendant to protect his interests. See 3 State v. Kelly, supra, and State v. Collinsworth, supra.

For this reason, we vacate the sentence imposed and remand the case

to the district court for appointment of counsel and a new resentencing

hearing. We pretermit any discussion of the validity of the sentence

imposed or other errors patent.

SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.