STATE v. MILLER (2025)

On November 30, 2021, a LaSalle Parish grand jury returned a bill of indictment charging Defendant, Brenton Anthony Miller, with the second degree murder of Caden S. Madden, in violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. Defendant subsequently entered a plea of not guilty.

On September 25, 2023, a jury trial commenced, and on September 28, 2023, Defendant was found guilty as charged. Sentencing was set for December 5, 2023. On October 30, 2023, Defendant filed a pro se Motion for New Trial alleging incompetence of defense counsel. The trial court set the matter for hearing on January 9, 2024. On December 5, 2023, the scheduled sentencing date, Defendant stated that he lacked the mental capacity to stand trial, and the defense was to prepare a motion to appoint physicians to a sanity commission. On December 15, 2023, the trial court appointed a sanity commission to determine Defendant's current and past mental condition.

On January 9, 2024, the State and defense entered a joint stipulation to continue the Motion for New Trial without date due to the pending sanity commission. On March 5, 2024, a sanity hearing was held wherein it was determined that Defendant was “competent to stand trial” and that he “knew the difference between right and wrong.” The court scheduled sentencing for April 9, 2024.

On April 9, 2024, Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Defendant's motion. Defendant timely filed a pro se Motion for Appeal.

Defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence, asserting three errors.

1. When viewed under the Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) standard, the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brenton Miller had the specific intent to kill Caden Madden.

2. The trial court erred in sentencing Brenton Miller without first considering and ruling on the timely filed pro se Motion for New Trial.

3. The trial court erred in proceeding with the hearing on the timely filed pro se Motion for Reconsideration without affording Brenton Miller the right to counsel at the hearing.

For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's sentence is vacated, and his case remanded for a ruling on his Motion for New Trial, and resentencing, if necessary.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO

Defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him without first considering and ruling on his pro se Motion for New Trial. The State acknowledges that La.Code Crim.P. art. 853 requires such motions to be filed and ruled upon prior to sentencing, and when this is not done, the case should be remanded for a ruling. If the motion is denied, resentencing is required. The State concedes that “[r]emand may be the best and appropriate course of action.”

In State v. Freeman, 15-251 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/7/15), 175 So.3d 1104, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial as well as the trial court's failure to grant a mistrial based on a comment made by the prosecutor. In its error patent review, this court stated:

In some cases where the trial court has failed to rule on a motion for judgment of acquittal before sentencing, the appellate courts have chosen to affirm or conditionally affirm a defendant's conviction and remand for disposition of the motion for judgment of acquittal with full reservation of the defendant's right to re-institute his appeal in the event that the trial court denied the motion. See State v. Lewis, 04-1074 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/6/05), 916 So.2d 294, writ denied, 05-2382 (La. 3/31/06), 925 So.2d 1257; State v. Pursell, 04-1775 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/6/05), 915 So.2d 871.

However, in State v. Leonard, 99-800 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/00), 758 So.2d 238, this court determined that the appropriate remedy was to pretermit discussion of the defendant's assignments of error, vacate the defendant's sentence, and remand the case for disposition of the motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal, and, if necessary, resentencing. The court also noted the defendant's right to appeal his conviction and sentence was preserved. Id. at 240. We observe that more recent cases from the fifth circuit have taken this approach. See, e.g., State v. Pettus, 10-742 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/24/11), 66 So.3d 1192; State v. Swanzy, 10-483 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/14/11), 71 So.3d 392. Further, as discussed in Swanzy, 71 So.3d at 394, the issue of sufficiency of the evidence is at issue in this appeal, and “[s]hould we decide the issue of sufficiency of evidence, we would effectively render the motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal moot.”

Accordingly, we vacate the defendant's sentence and remand for disposition of his motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. See Leonard, 758 So.2d 238. Further, should the defendant's motion be denied, the defendant shall be resentenced and his right to appeal his sentence and conviction preserved. Id.

Id. at 1106.

Recently, in State v. Johnwell, 24-286 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/13/24), 402 So.3d 25, the same action was taken in a case where the defendant's motion for new trial had not been ruled upon. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's refusal to give a requested jury charge. This court vacated the defendant's sentences and remanded the case for disposition of the motion for new trial and resentencing, if necessary. See also State v. Cruz, 15-755 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/3/16), 184 So.3d 869.

Accordingly, Defendant's sentence is vacated and his case remanded for the trial court to rule on his Motion for New Trial. If the motion is denied, Defendant shall be resentenced.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBERS ONE AND TWO

In his first assignment of error, Defendant contends the State presented insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the specific intent to kill Caden Madden. In his third assignment of error, Defendant contends the trial court erred in hearing the motion to reconsider sentence without affording him the right to counsel. For the reasons discussed above, these assignments of error are rendered moot.

DECREE

Defendant's sentence is vacated and the case remanded for disposition of the Motion for New Trial and resentencing, if necessary.

SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.

GREMILLION, Judge.