Opinion
21-KH-678
12-28-2021
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DARREN ROBINSON IN RE DARREN ROBINSON
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN D. ENRIGHT, JR., DIVISION "N", NUMBER 09-4314
Panel composed of Judges Fredericks Homberg Wicker, Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson
WRIT DENIED
Relator, Darren Robinson, seeks review of the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court's October 6, 2021 judgment denying his application for postconviction relief ("APCR"). In 2010, Relator was convicted of possession of cocaine 200 - 400 grams in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(F) and possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1. On March 11, 2010, Relator was sentenced to 30-years imprisonment at hard labor for the first count, which would run concurrently with his sentence of 15 years imprisonment at hard labor on the second count. Two weeks later, Relator was adjudicated a fourth felony offender on the first count and a second felony offender on the second count. He was re-sentenced to 60-years imprisonment at hard labor on the first count, which would run concurrently with 30-years imprisonment at hard labor on the second count.
In his APCR, Relator claimed that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing after being adjudicated a habitual offender, and that his sentence is unconstitutionally excessive. In denying his application, the district court found that Relator's claims were purely speculative and conclusory, and that he failed to make a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. In his writ application, Relator contends that his counsel did not object to the enhanced sentences or file another motion to reconsider the sentence after the enhanced sentences were imposed. He further argues that he has made a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel in light of State v. Harris, 18-1012 (La. 7/9/20), 2020 WL 3867207. Relator also avers that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding his claims. 1
On the showing made, we find that Relator failed to make a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing based on Harris, supra. The mere failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence does not in and of itself constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v. Cox, 13-700 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/31/14), 134 So.3d 74, 79. Relator did not provide a copy of the transcript of the hearing on the habitual offender bill of information. See State v. Cambrice, 21-KH-575 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/22/21) (unpublished writ disposition). Also, the trial court may dispose of the petition for relief summarily if the factual and legal issues can be resolved based upon the application and answer, and supporting documents, including relevant transcripts, depositions, and other reliable documents submitted by either party are available to the court. La. C.Cr.P. art. 929(A). Thus, we find that the trial court acted within its discretion when it resolved Relator's claims without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See State ex rel. Tassin v. Whitley, 602 So.2d721, 722(La. 1992).
Accordingly, the writ application is denied.
MEJ
FHW
JGG 2