Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 05-14-2021
Case Style:
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RANDY KEITH BALDRIDGE, II
Case Number: 20-250
Judge: Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux
Court: STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
Plaintiff's Attorney: Keith A. Stutes, District Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Lake Charles, LA - Criminal defense attorney represented Randy Keith Baldridge, II with a indecent behavior with a juvenile charge
On December 16, 2020, Defendant filed a “Motion for Consideration of
Appeal Summarily.” The motion suggests “expedited consideration of the current
appeal, without the need for briefs, would expediently resolve this matter without
necessity of time, effort, and expense of issuing briefing notices and docketing of
the case.” Since this Court’s August 12, 2020 opinion was silent as to the sentence,
Defendant’s motion requests this Court “render an opinion in the current appeal,
1The opinion does not indicate it was not designated for publication, but the opinion could
not be located on Westlaw.2
setting aside the sentence as this court’s action in KA 19-158 set aside Appellant’s
conviction and a sentence cannot stand once the conviction has been set aside.”
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 872 states:
A valid sentence must rest upon a valid and sufficient:
(1) Statute;
(2) Indictment; and
(3) Verdict, judgment, or plea of guilty.
Comment (d) to Article 872 states:
The final requirement for a valid sentence is a valid and sufficient
verdict, judgment, or plea of guilty. Most challenges of sentences have
been directed at the sufficiency and validity of the verdict. For example,
a valid sentence cannot rest upon a verdict which is not responsive to
the indictment (State v. Robertson, 111 La. 809, 35 So. 916 (1904);
State v. Gendusa, 190 La. 422, 182 So. 559 (1938)); nor upon a verdict
which is not returned by the proper number of jurors.
In State v. Anderson, 17-927, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/6/18), 248 So.3d 415,
419, writ denied, 18-738 (La. 3/6/19), 266 So.3d 901, (emphasis added), the court
stated:
Because the verdict is invalid and because a sentence based on an
invalid verdict is itself invalid, the conviction and sentence of the
defendant must be set aside. See La. C. Cr. P. art. 872(3).
See also State v. Blade, 12-721 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/6/13) (unpublished opinion)2
; State
v. Thibodeaux, 380 So.2d 59 (La.1980).
As Ramos held a non-unanimous verdict is unconstitutional and as this court
vacated Defendant’s conviction based on Ramos, Defendant’s sentence is invalid
pursuant to the above-cited statute and jurisprudence.
Outcome: Therefore, Defendant’s appeal of his resentencing is dismissed as moot.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: