State v. Sheppard
1993 La. App. LEXIS 1924, 1993 WL 166301, 618 So. 2d 1204 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's failure to advise a defendant of a potential insanity defense based on voluntary intoxication does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel when the charged offense is a general intent crime for which that defense is legally unavailable.
Facts:
- Robert Sheppard was charged with two counts of armed robbery.
- Sheppard later alleged that at the time of the offense, he was addicted to PCP and was suffering from drug-induced hallucinations.
- Sheppard did not inform his attorney at the time of his guilty plea about his alleged drug use or hallucinations.
- Sheppard's defense attorney, William Landry, testified that Sheppard gave no indication of any drug use or mental problems that would have prompted a discussion about an insanity or intoxication defense.
- Landry testified that if Sheppard had informed him of being under the influence of PCP, he would have advised him of a possible intoxication defense and requested a sanity commission.
- During a pre-sentence investigation conducted after his guilty plea, Sheppard told a probation officer that he had been smoking PCP on the night of the robberies and was hallucinating.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Sheppard was charged with two counts of armed robbery in May 1986.
- Sheppard pled guilty to one count of armed robbery in exchange for the state dismissing the second count.
- The trial court sentenced Sheppard to ninety-nine years at hard labor.
- Sheppard appealed his sentence as excessive to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- Sheppard filed an application for post-conviction relief in the trial court, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, which the court denied.
- The Louisiana Court of Appeal granted Sheppard's subsequent writ application and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine if Sheppard was aware of a possible insanity defense before his plea.
- Following the hearing, the trial court found that Sheppard was not made aware of the defense but denied relief, ruling the defense was not legally available to him.
- Sheppard's application for a writ of review to the Court of Appeal was denied.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted Sheppard's application and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal for briefing, argument, and opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's failure to advise a defendant of a potential insanity defense based on voluntary intoxication constitute ineffective assistance of counsel when that defense is not legally available for the charged crime of armed robbery, a general intent offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Bowes, Judge.
No, the attorney's failure to advise the defendant of an insanity defense based on voluntary intoxication did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Under Louisiana law, voluntary intoxication is only a defense to crimes requiring specific intent, and since armed robbery is a general intent crime, the defense was unavailable to the defendant, meaning counsel's performance was not deficient. The court reasoned that under LSA-R.S. 14:15, the defense of voluntary intoxication is limited to crimes where the condition 'precluded the presence of a specific criminal intent.' The court noted that the Louisiana legislature amended the armed robbery statute (LSA-R.S. 14:64) in 1983, replacing the word 'theft' (which requires specific intent to permanently deprive) with 'taking of,' thereby making armed robbery a general intent crime. Because the intoxication defense was legally unavailable for armed robbery, counsel could not be deficient for failing to advise Sheppard about it. Applying the two-prong test from Strickland v. Washington, the court found no deficient performance. Furthermore, it found no prejudice, as there is no reasonable probability that Sheppard would have insisted on going to trial had he been correctly advised that the defense was inapplicable to his case.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim cannot succeed if it is based on an attorney's failure to pursue a defense that is legally impossible. It clarifies that following a 1983 statutory amendment, armed robbery in Louisiana is a general intent crime, thereby rendering the voluntary intoxication defense inapplicable. This case serves as a crucial precedent for defense attorneys and prosecutors, defining the limited scope of the intoxication defense and setting a high bar for post-conviction relief claims that allege counsel was ineffective for not raising legally invalid defenses.
