State v. Coleman

714 So. 2d 859, 97 La.App. 3 Cir. 1364, 1998 La. App. LEXIS 1395, 1998 WL 264858
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 27, 1998
DocketNo. CR97-1364
StatusPublished

This text of 714 So. 2d 859 (State v. Coleman) 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.

Bluebook
State v. Coleman, 714 So. 2d 859, 97 La.App. 3 Cir. 1364, 1998 La. App. LEXIS 1395, 1998 WL 264858 (La. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Ji_WOODARD, Judge.

The defendant, Marty Ray Coleman, who was convicted of forcible rape, a violation of La.R.S. 14:42.1, and was sentenced to serve forty years at hard labor, now appeals his [860]*860conviction and sentence based on grounds that:

(1) The trial court erred by overruling defendant’s objections to the trial court’s instructions regarding sentence.
(2) The trial court erred by denying defendant’s request to retake the stand to testify.
(3) The trial court erred by removing defendant from the courtroom and the jury’s verdict was improper because defendant was not present in the courtroom when the jury verdict was returned.
(4) The trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence of forty years imprisonment at hard labor.
(5) The jury’s verdict was based on insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.

|2The defendant also asserts the following errors, pro se:

(1) The trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss counsel.
(2) The defendant was denied due process as a result of Brady material.
(3) The defendant was denied due process as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

LAW

ERRORS Patent

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find that there are no errors patent.

Motion to Dismiss Counsel

We will address this issue first and exclusively, because it is dispositive of the case.

In connection with his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss counsel. The motion was filed December 4, 1996 and was scheduled to be heard January 13, 1997. Notwithstanding, it was not heard on that date. The court indicated that the date had been upset due to an ice storm. However, the motion was never placed back on the docket.

The trial on the merits had been set for April 14, 1997. On that date, the court entertained a motion to reschedule the trial for the following day. It was during that discussion that the defendant, himself, reasserted his motion to dismiss his counsel. The following colloquy took place:

BY MR. SHANNON:
Your Honor, this is Docket Number 244,976_ Mr. Coleman is charged with Forcible Rape. He’s in court with his attorney, Mr. Kutch_ Your Honor, the State would — the State — •
BY THE DEFENDANT:
I’d like to say something, Your Honor.
JjBY THE COURT:
One minute, please. You’ll get a chance to speak.
BY THE DEFENDANT:
Okay.
BY THE COURT:
Right now, the DA’s speaking.
BY MR. SHANNON:
Your Honor, it’s set for trial today. The State would move that the matter be fixed — reset for tomorrow morning when the jury’s present. The State’s ready to proceed.
BY THE COURT:
Okay. Mr. Kutch, you represent him, correct?
BY MR. KUTCH:
That’s correct, Your Honor.
BY THE COURT:
Your client is getting ready to speak. Have you talked to him?
BY MR. KUTCH:
I’ve talked to him. He’s indicated he’s now dissatisfied with my performance and wants another attorney.
BY THE DEFENDANT:
I had this motion to be heard on July— January the 13th. They never — they wouldn’t hear it. I tried to get it did then. I want it heard.

[861]*861The court inquires what motion and asks the clerk if it was heard. The defendant interjects:

I asked them two or three times for to call them back to court and have it heard.... And they said they would take me back that next Tuesday, but they didn’t — they didn’t ...

The clerk explains that it was never “brought back on the docket.” The court asks the defendant why he is making the motion.

BY THE DEFENDANT:
Because he’s not showing no interest in my case. I tried to get this did before, but they wouldn’t ...
BY MR. SHANNON:
14Judge, Mister — Mister
BY THE DEFENDANT:
... they wouldn’t hear it.
BY MR. SHANNON:
Mr. Kutch has filed ...
BY THE DEFENDANT:
I’m doing two years now ...
BY MR. SHANNON:
... a number of motions in this case.
BY THE DEFENDANT:
... behind a charge I didn’t commit.
BY THE COURT:
One moment, please. One at a time. What’s that, please?
BY MR. SHANNON:
Mr. Kutch has filed a number of motions in this case. I’ve had to dig up ...
BY THE DEFENDANT:
Shit.
BY MR. SHANNON:
... video tape ...
BY MR. KUTCH:
Audio tapes.
BY MR. SHANNON:
... (Indistinct) from the APD and this, that and the other he’s added. I’ve provided all that to Mr. Kutch at Mr. Kutch’s request, over and above.
BY THE COURT:
Speak up, Mr. Kutch.
BY THE DEFENDANT:
Shit.
BY MR. KUTCH:
I’m sorry, Your Honor?
BY THE COURT:
He’s saying that you haven’t done anything to represent him.
JgBY THE DEFENDANT:
Matter of fact, I was cussed ...
BY MR. KUTCH:
I have talked with the—
BY THE DEFENDANT:
... by him this morning.
BY THE COURT:
What’s that, please?
BY MR. KUTCH:

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

Related

State v. Leggett
363 So. 2d 434 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1978)
State v. Seiss
428 So. 2d 444 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1983)
State v. Simms
505 So. 2d 981 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
714 So. 2d 859, 97 La.App. 3 Cir. 1364, 1998 La. App. LEXIS 1395, 1998 WL 264858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-coleman-lactapp-1998.