Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirms conviction and sentence for Kenneth Romero

An Evangeline Parish man, who entered guilty pleas to negligent homicide and hit-and-run driving in March of last year, recently had his convictions and sentences affirmed by the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal.
The case arose in the 13th Judicial District Court when, according to the Third Circuit’s decision, “on October 19, 2013, defendant Kenneth Romero, while driving his Dodge pick-up truck, struck the victim, Jonathan Ben. As a result of the injuries suffered from the collision, Mr. Ben died. Defendant did not stop and render any assistance to Mr. Ben, nor did he call the police or any emergency assistance. Instead, he fled the scene.”
Romero was originally charged with vehicular homicide and hit-and-run driving; however, the State of Louisiana through the Evangeline Parish District Attorney’s Office amended the charge of vehicular homicide to negligent homicide.
As a result, on March 3, 2017, Romero entered pleas of guilty before the Honorable Chuck West. The guilty plea to the charge of hit-and-run was entered pursuant to a North Carolina vs. Alford decision. In this case, according to the Third Circuit, Romero through his “trial counsel acknowledged for the record that he believed there was ‘sufficient and substantial evidence’ of defendant’s guilt with respect to the hit-and-run driving charge without admitting guilt.”
Judge West sentenced Romero to serve three and one-half years at hard labor on the charge of negligent homicide. The court also sentenced the defendant to serve eight years at hard labor on the charge of hit-and-run driving with three years suspended. On this charge, Romero was also placed on five years supervised probation and ordered to pay a fine of $2,500.00. Both sentences were to be served concurrently.
Romero appealed to the appellate court in Lake Charles based on the fact that “the trial court erred in accepting defendant’s Alford plea when the defendant denied knowing his vehicle had struck the victim ‘without requiring the State to establish a substantial basis of guilt in the record.’”
The appellate court, finding that hit-and-run driving does not require specific intent, found there was no merit the defendant’s claims and affirmed the lower court’s rulings.