State Of Louisiana VS Karen Marie Calloway

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 KA 0012 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS if KAREN MARIE CALLOWAY W Judgment Rendered On Appeal NOV 7 2007 from the 32nd Judicial District Court In and For the Parish of Terrebolli1e Trial Court No 463 064 Honorable John R Walker Judge Presiding Counsel for Joseph L Waitz Jr District Attorney Appellee State of Louisiana Barry Vice Ellen Daigle Doskey Assistant District Attorneys Houma LA Counsel for Defendant Gwendolyn Brown Baton Rouge LA BEFORE Karen Marie 0 9 s hd Calloway PETTIGREW DOWNING AND HUGHES JJ ss c0 Appellant l i S vJl o crnA HUGHES J Defendant seventeen year old information with than Marie Karen son Demond Kentrell not guilty and motions for new trial and for denied She was 14 69 They pleaded judgment notwithstanding to three years assignments The evidence is insufficient circumstantial reasonable Ajury guilty She filed charged the verdict but these denied was hard labor at the as was following her six of enor Assignment upon not appeals designating now value greater a imprisonment Her motion for reconsideration of the sentence She charged by bill of things having as her codefendant were Calloway guilty Ms sentenced request for an appeal bond the and Calloway of stolen illegal possession 500 00 violations of La R S found Demond were Calloway evidence of En or No to support the conviction the and 1 State failed to as it is based exclude every hypothesis of innocence Assignment of Error No The trial comi ened notwithstanding Ms by denying Calloway The trial court erred judgment of En or No 3 Ms by denying Calloway Assignment of En or No court ened by imposing Assignment The trial motion for s the verdict Assigrunent The trial 2 court ed en an s motion for new trial 4 excessive sentence of En or No 5 by denying sentence 2 Ms Calloway s motion to reconsider of Enor No 6 Assignment The trial ened court by denying Ms Calloway motion for s appeal bond For the following reasons we reverse the conviction and sentence FACTS When Hunicane Katrina struck the New Orleans 2005 Ms her Calloway Demond her asthmatic neighbor named Keesa when their the men tried again the next family had day to and to The group men were a Superdome on but a the were ride to the to rest while stayed turned away spend the night reach the or to seek shelter walked and hitched women son female teenaged a 29 months looting and robberies where the area But the Superdome and the seven days without electricity two low They City Connection bridge Superdome teenaged try and reach the Superdome neighborhood went to the her apartment in Manero in her apatiment for and August on Kashawn her Williams supplies began running in the OCCUlTing living then decided to working phone the men were Williams daughter old Stephanie at the MatTero remained Crescent ten year sister in law pregnant Travis boyfriend area by police The bridge were again at turned away the By that time situation on the bridge family was screaming and learned that witnessed a a stabbing stranger tried family decided When their to over grab had out of food and deteriorating rapidly They rapes and robberies water that at Ms to return to run a man was Calloway s were saving young and the fighting going on heard Demond for his infant daughter When Kashawn the their MatTero apartment they retUlned home their apatiment had remaining food and saw water water had been stolen 3 been broken into and The door and windows had been kicked open and the guard family During the night the children over adults took turns the night standing As the looting continued area throughout the night in her her and her safety since they had no food electricity of a s neighborhood Ms Calloway began fearing for water or use nearby Harvey Canal might also heard that the They had phone police were no and they heard screaming gunshots around the family There during overflow The next day a location about half Demond walked had to sell cars sell Ms Tundra pickup but the two because her that Reggie the had heard around the or six vehicles and Reggie was had had reluctant to sell the tluck negotiating an to Ms paperwork at to Reggie she buy the Tundra pickup due s or bring the time to to that he would purchase a Toyota and people more indicating that he needed to retmTI home 2 200 00 gave him I for to her surprise Reggie Instead and Tundra and the Solara husband them to her she did not told Ms s Calloways had welding income about to the Houma himself concern the chaos of the situation indicated that the Calloway named that he did not have the sale documents available at that moment testified that Ms son asthma attack keys to both the Calloway provided Testimony man a suggested Calloway had but that he would either send the documents 1 to and her a neighborhood usually it would hold thinking Calloway returned expected They spoke cars at some men were Calloway Ms cars Toyota Solara but she wanted daughter gave her the Calloway at had five continued When Ms which she Calloway a Reggie look to Reggie Calloway belongings it over Calloway that Ms selling mile away a who Ms Reggie neighbor told Ms herself address Ms Calloway overly Similarly she did with not later the suspect 2 300 00 in cash at the time most ofwhich came fi 4 om the vehicles them to Reggie stolen because were her and the vehicles did not had the look keys to have to both when he sold been broken into or hot wired After and their acquiring the belongings and they stayed with where two vehicles Ms Calloway Ms and Kevin Adams 2004 Dr Cossich a s mother Harvey Solara to the dealership for a Don Bohn repair to a condition and had about 24 000 miles testified that he purchased evacuated steering repaired leaving the Tundra hurricane the Tundra on was window Toyota a new LaPalco on brought the dealership was in Dr excellent it s Toyota Tundra on brought are Tundra similar new for Mr about LaPalco Boulevard in Harvey the Tundra to the dealership to When the hurricane struck Mr Adams at the dealership He testified that before the in excellent condition and had about 40 000 miles it Both Dr Cossich and Mr Adams testified that they a Dr When the hurricane the Solara the 2003 Toyota Prior to the hurricane Mr Adams have the power on Mr Adams 30 000 00 from Bohn Brothers by purchased the Solara at the leaving Cossich testified that before the hurricane concerning to respectively dentist testified that he minor struck Dr Cossich evacuated Adams months later Before the hurricane hit Dr Cossich had Boulevard in The facts two to Houma stolen vehicles owned were 32 000 00 from Solara for about About family Department received a tip that led them discover that the Solara and Tundra At the trial up her they drove the Tundra and the Solara detectives from the Houma Police Dimetry Cossich Calloway packed attempted stolen vehicle report with Jefferson Parish authorities but 5 were to make unable to do taking stolen it claims from only fair condition She severely damaged but it not was key marks and the floor it that the Solara rearview mirror was keyed was a Calloway testified from the a known 2 neighborhood these purchasing She did two was vehicles the vehicles she the vehicles thought were stolen get rid of the cars now license plate or Ms she had attempted responded on cross i t was know what that a the interior Be purchase owned never way of something the vehicles and license s or to prior purchased a car knowing the retail value of never crossed her mind that not look broken into to break for it or or hot wired and she Reggie was trying to let the rain hit it and nothing for it to never disguise regularly while in Bouma after the hurricane When asked no driver a getting ready Calloway Demond testified that he 2 have not and get take it away and get In Bouma was the selling vehicles in the back of known for They did that since the levee Be system had been ripped stereo She testified that it purchased to s hanging and exposed Thus she testified she had before water Reggie cut open was damage that while she did not lot car water flat tire and the out which left all the stereo wires Ms the sunroof up broken off and it had testified that the Tundra had excellent condition not in were were Calloway Ms Travis Williams wet was in was it the sunroof was cut there on also testified that the vehicles boyfriend reported not were that time at testified that the Solara had dents in they Calloway testified that when she bought the Tundra pickup Ms Reggie car him that police advised Dr Cossich testified that the so examination if Reggie or altered or camouflage changed the Tundra s the vehicle in any way drove the Solm a to school and to work Be testified that he had had a 6 idea the car car lot the defendant business office for the on in the shed so I wouldn t I didn t going house that had another little something paJi was no was stolen The not discuss it with his to when Ms As it tmned out the vehicles Jeff Walters who automobiles testified never trial as an direct examination that a auction and Solara would s If sold by a between bring value that high as a twenty five had On on some cents cross engine He dollar it power come a responded was point appraising of Dr 24 000 00 at an 24 000 00 used but in to those of Mr 17 000 00 and a retail or sell for damaged would likely roughly 5 000 00 i f in fact the vehicles steering gone examination Mr Walters testified water at worst examination damaged would vehicles on a cross was to those 2003 Tundra wholesale value of a 20 000 00 vehicle that a asked 20 500 00 as and private individual it would sell for between Tundra would have s her used 2004 Solara in excellent condition with 40 000 miles and features similar Adams give on expert 22 000 00 and Mr Walters also testified that 27 000 00 her was to Houma did go excellent condition with 24 000 miles and features similar Cossich it and looked for him he at the qualified on Reggie to Marrero Calloway went back him and he did and would then to Houma coming was conceln Calloway testified Ms mother understanding that Reggie the title the vehicles did not price paid for the interior was where you would He not pay a also waterlogged were trashed was maybe a little penny for those In my current position I would not ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS 1 2 AND 3 In her first three evidence was not assigmnents sufficient to of error Ms Calloway suppOli her conviction argues that the Specifically contends that the State failed to prove the elements of intent that the vehicles legally acquired were stolen when in fact she the vehicles 7 or she knowledge reasonably believed that she A conviction based due process See U S on insufficient evidence standard of review for the to the 821 B art 61 L Ed 2d 560 Virginia v This is 1979 an a provides uphold a 2 The conviction in the reasonable doubt 443 U S 307 light most proved See La 319 99 S Ct 2781 objective standard the Code for testing 2789 the overall for reasonable doubt Fmihermore Louisiana Revised Statutes 15 438 circumstantial evidence analyzing 9 into Aliicle 821 is the standard of review evidence both direct and circumstantial when to it violates as art I Const viewing the evidence beyond Incorporated miiculated in Jackson stand could conclude that the State prosecution essential elements of the crime Crim P La sufficiency of the evidence is whether any rational trier of fact favorable XIV Const amend cannot that the trier of fact must be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable 2001 2585 pp 4 5 hypothesis of App La innocence 1 Cir 6 21 02 Louisiana Revised Statutes 14 69 See State 822 So 2d 141 provides in v Patorno 144 peliinent pmi Illegal possession of stolen things is the intentional possessing procuring receiving or concealing of anything of value which has been the subject of any robbery or theft under A circumstances which indicate that the offender knew good reason to believe that the thing was the or had subject of one of these offenses the three elements of the crime of Thus things stolen are 790 and goods Mangrum stolen intent 1 3 possession procurement receipt knowledge 509 So 2d 818 things La 2 is a general 820 La that the App intent crime goods See State v concealing of stolen were 1 Cir 1987 or of stolen State Illegal possession Davis v of 371 So 2d 788 General criminal intent is present when the circumstances 1979 indicate that the offender in the have advelied illegal possession to the prescribed ordinary course of human criminal consequences 8 as experience must reasonably celiain to result from his act of fact it question or failure to act La R S be may infened transaction See Davis 371 So 2d In State per curiam v from intent is the circumstances a of the at 790 Chester 97 1001 p 3 the Louisiana Though 14 10 2 La 19 12 707 So 2d 973 97 974 Supreme Comi stated from the may infer the defendant s guilty knowledge See Barnes v United States circumstances of the offense J urors 412 U S 837 843 93 S Ct 2357 2362 37 L F or centuries courts have instructed 380 2d Ed juries that an 1973 inference of guilty lmowledge may be drawn from the fact of unexplained The inference of guilty possession of stolen goods knowledge arising from the possession of stolen propeliy is generally a much stronger one than the inference the possessor 1381 committed the theft Cosby v Jones 682 F 2d 1373 1Ith Cir 1982 and for the buyer and seller alike in a one of the most telling transaction involving stolen goods United indices of guilt is a low price paid by the receiver States v Werner 160 438 2d F 443 2d Cir 1947 1 see Austin W Scott Jr Substantive Criminal Wayne R LaFave Law S 8 10 p 430 West 1986 The circumstance that the buyer paid an inadequate price for the goods that the seller was inesponsible that the transaction between them was secret see United these factors all point guilty lmowledge toward celi States v Prazak 623 F 2d 152 154 55 10th Cir 1980 denied 449 U S 880 101 S Ct 229 66 L Ed 2d 104 1980 Acquisition of recently stolen propeliy at a ridiculously low price from an unknown person is itself sufficient to suppOli an inference that the one acquiring the property lmew the propeliy was stolen State v Butler 9 Ariz App 162 450 P 2d 128 there is other evidence in addition to 132 1969 When possession and sale at a disproportionately low price guilty Russell v State 583 P 2d 690 Imow1edge may be found 699 1978 Thieves must rid themselves of stolen Wyo property as quickly as possible and willingness to sell at a grossly reduced price betrays or should betray such a predicament Application of the that a Chester precepts to the instant matter convinces us have concluded that the evidence as rational trier of fact could admitted excluded a reasonable lmowledge that the vehicles were not hypothesis stolen for the vehicles uncontroverted trial purchase both vehicles had that Ms Calloway While she did pay a reduced testimony established that at damage that would 9 had no price the time of have lowered their prices including testified water examination that on cross lose up to the Solara damage indicated that he would pay additional damage such so purchased Calloway first no driver Accordingly before a car as of knowing the value of the vehicles she vehicles are patiicularly relevant chaos around her and her the vehicles from used vehicles conducted in Reggie also there in the a family Reggie public a man trying to vehicles for she break she According to the on them testimony to for them purchase unsophisticated an swiftly descending a price with and s not neighborhood everything way into total selling but was Testimony it negotiating with Reggie appeared people were 3 it did not would no or purchased secretive six other vehicles to sell and other together owned never Calloway purchased the was Calloway was was purchased Calloway testified figured Reggie paid she knew to be in the business of She testified that since everyone all the interest 3 or already damaged she testified at trial she had negotiated purchase vehicles 2 200 00 steering license and had s She location in Ms Ms cross them price area was The area had about five Furthennore to saw The suggests that when Ms Calloway stolen with any the circumstances under which Ms Also to suggests that the disparity between the estimated She had herself as vehicle a Walters great that it should have been readily apparent such cause Mr on the power around the time of the hurricane and the buyer that or appraisal expert damaged vehicle water a the interior value of the vehicles when Ms not damage could Fmiher nothing for to as The evidence further right water three quarters of its value to Walters the Mr that when she cross her mind that thought the levee sell them anyway he So he s looking at I was can can of the defendant and Demond another man named 10 purchased the they were getting ready other than lose get rid of them Slick was with Reggie now and get something for it get nothing for it Calloway and Demond Ms Finally did not believe the vehicles Once Ms the license change or vehicles in any way the Houma police her suppOlied by assurances was plates family arrived used the vehicles They of the vehicles purchase going to come to Houma to her the papers and had as drove the Solm a to to high vehicles with his mother the vehicle he used wouldn t give those guys Demond were light to out stolen was keys leave I never Reggie to came of mind and understanding When he was in Houma he at home he parked price paid for the When asked whether he had any indication that to no Demond testified stolen doing when they responded finally about was a me no his the time she went He did not discuss the car on are reasonable school and to work conceal the lack of claims s based Reggie disappeared by are from papers and the title to Demond testified that while he similar vein tried Calloway to Marrero and looked for to her state at the time and under the circumstances a they learned Regarding the give her it is true that Although back to ask for them her asseliions In Ms camouflage the testimony that she believed Reggie but could not find him give until openly in fact stolen were or did not they in Houma disguise to attempt or She testified she retmned the vehicles Houma to her that the vehicles for the paperwork never claim that she stolen were Calloway and actions and s following the purchase of the vehicles suppOlis her conduct alter let the rain hit it and water take it away and or thought You it know car were was a we of heaven selling cars 11 My When asked what he selling light No momma thought those vehicles like that out of heaven finally about to get I out thought I we thought it Officer Dennis Bourdreaux testified had to stereo confront Demond in the Solara Demond was very and in being respectful High School Ellender too to him and was Ms Calloway s possible guilt Particularly no that under these circumstances Ms Mussall 523 So 2d 1305 viewing posseSSIOn of stolen reasonable doubt sentence are as things to Ms an all of the evidence as reasonable doubt to Calloway knew La were or stolen 1988 had good as See e Proving reason State g a it has Calloway here been shown not Accordingly to v defendant s essential element of the crime of and illegal beyond a the conviction and reversed The trial court erred in Procedure Article 332 judgment a we rational trier of fact could have found 1311 12 knowledgeable possession is Under the facts of this Calloway and Demond of Ms would have purchased believe that the vehicles she car evasive in any way not conclude that any rational trier of fact after as in Houma about the the entire record light of the credible testimony favorably to the prosecution occasion when he an Officer Bourreaux confirmed that loud carefully reviewed We have case at regarding clearly Louisiana Code of Criminal denying bail states that bail shall be allowed if a sentence imposed emphasis added Ms incarcerated during the of this pendency a fter sentence of five years Calloway should appeal CONVICTION AND SENTENCE REVERSED 12 or and until final less is not actually have been STATE OF LOUISIANA NUMBER 2007 KA 0012 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL KAREN MARIE CALLOWAY FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA i BEFORE PETTIGREW DOWNING AND HUGHES JJ PETTIGREW J DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS PETTIGREW J dissenting I dissent and following would affirm the defendant not sufficient to assignments of error conviction based A Process or knowledge that the goods on sufficiency of the evidence light S Ct 2781 821 is an to most favorable to the uphold a 9 2 stolen in were 2789 art as conviction is whether viewing the evidence prosecution any rational trier of fact could conclude 821 B 61 L Ed 2d 560 The Jackson 1979 v Virginia standard of review a 443 for reasonable doubt reasonable doubt s U 307 incorporated objective standard for testing the overall evidence circumstantial it violates Due The standard of review for proved the essential elements of the crime beyond Code Crim P See La insufficient evidence cannot stand s U Const amend XIV La Const art I See that the State both 319 in Article direct and La s R analyzing circumstantial evidence When 99 provides that the fact finder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable La was reasonably believed that she legally acquired the stolen vehicles that she 15 438 the defendant argues the evidence Specifically the defendant contends that the support her conviction State failed to prove the elements of intent in the conviction and sentence for the reasons In her first three the s App hypothesis of innocence 1 Cir 6 21 02 822 So 2d 141 Louisiana Revised Statutes 14 69 See State v Patorno 2001 2585 pp 4 5 144 provides in pertinent part Illegal possession of stolen things is the intentional possessing procuring receiving or concealing of anything of value which has been the subject of any robbery or theft under circumstances which indicate that the offender knew or had good reason to believe that the thing was the subject of one of these offenses A The three elements of the crime of intent 2 possessing knowledge the goods 1 Cir 1987 Davis procuring receiving stolen were State 790 La must have or failure to act fact it need not be proven transaction as a any witness the matter is s R one of the ordinary course See State of human v experience reasonably certain to as Though intent is 14 10 2 a or to be in whole or in reject a question of determination of the not its is not given evidence reweigh the evidence named There was no in the back of her Reggie bill of sale register or Reggie gave her keys sufficiency subject his 2003 Tundra 1 Cir 9 25 98 new review An 721 So 2d 929 932 two stolen vehicles from 2 200 00 in cash paperwork memorializing the transaction insurance for either vehicle for 32 000 00 was paid off his note for about purchased v appellate neighborhood allegedly for to both the Tundra and the Solara his insurance company In State to The trier of fact s Karen According to purchase only the Tundra but when she gave Reggie the cash purchased insurance company any other purchase automobile she wanted to 2004 Solara or the credibility of the witnesses testimony at trial established that Karen purchased a man matters to overturn a fact finder s determination of Taylor 97 2261 pp 5 6 La App v part the testimony of conflicting testimony about factual weight of the evidence weight court will not guilt State accept depends upon determination of the curiam crime It may be inferred from the circumstances of the when there is Moreover resolution of which Karen general intent Davis 371 SO 2d at 790 The trier of fact is free to did not is a in the La fact 3 Mangrum 509 SO 2d 818 820 La App adverted to the prescribed criminal consequences result from his act and General criminal intent is present when the 1979 circumstances indicate that the offender The v 1 are concealing stolen goods or Illegal possession of stolen things 371 SO 2d 788 appellate illegal possession of stolen things new paid him Chester for 30 000 00 Dr Cossich testified that his in excellent condition 26 000 00 was in and that his Kevin Adams testified that excellent condition and that 23 000 00 for the truck 97 1001 p the Louisiana State Court stated 3 La 12 19 97 707 So 2d 973 974 per J infer the defendant s may circumstances of the offense See Barnes urors 843 93 S Ct 2357 guilty 37 L Ed 2d 380 2362 from knowledge United States 412 v 1973 the s U 837 For centuries courts juries that an inference of guilty knowledge may be drawn from the fact of unexplained possession of stolen goods The inference of guilty knowledge arising from the possession of stolen property is generally a much stronger one than the inference the possessor 11th committed the theft Cosby v Jones 682 F 2d 1373 1381 Cir 1982 and for the buyer and seller alike in a transaction involving stolen goods one of the most telling indices of guilt is a low price paid by the receiver United States v Werner 160 F 2d 438 443 2d Cir 1947 see 1 Wayne R LaFave Austin W Scott Jr Substantive Criminal Law 9 8 10 p 430 West 1986 The circumstance that the buyer paid an inadequate price for the goods that the seller was irresponsible that the transaction between them was secret these factors all point toward 154 55 see United States v Prazak 623 F 2d 152 guilty knowledge 10th Cir 1980 Acquisition of recently stolen property at a ridiculously low price from an unknown person is itself sufficient to support an inference that the one acquiring the property knew the property was 1969 stolen State v Butler 9 Ariz App 162 450 P 2d 128 132 When there is other evidence in addition to possession and sale at a Russell v disproportionately low price guilty knowledge may be found have instructed State 583 P 2d 690 699 1978 Thieves must rid themselves of stolen property as quickly as possible and willingness to sell price betrays or should betray such a predicament While there the vehicles the Tundra purchased owners new was insurance on it was circumstantial evidence were about 62 000 00 companies for 2 200 00 a a about one stealing at this time an was and the fact that complete lack of transactional formality reasonable Karen 49 000 00 was purchased both some damage the first time she Moreover ever Karen purchased any or stolen two relatively acquired these vehicles with at the back of her discussion about where were to the given the widespread looting neighborhood how he came to juror could have inferred that Karen knew believe that the vehicles when jurors to infer that Karen should have been put extraordinarily low price was no year old and paid off by the rightful were seemingly illegitimate transaction wherein she acquired and a and both vehicles bought them and that this vehicles for vehicles was While Karen testified that there new with whom there the Solara stolen total of about not unreasonable for the notice about to the theft of linking Karen While the value of both vehicles combined about two years old vehicles when she vehicle or When the vehicles was vehicles for direct grossly reduced testimony provided jurors with direct evidence regarding the value of trial the vehicles was no at a or had from a someone possess these good reason to and that she intended to possess stolen things given her two month and use possession of these vehicles See Chester 97 1001 at pp 3 4 707 So 2d at 974 975 When involves circumstantial evidence and the a case hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant s falls and the defendant is reasonable doubt defendant Karen State Captville 448 SO 2d 676 680 La 1984 weight to give evidence 10 17 00 in criminal cases 772 SO 2d 78 conflicts with the 83 two stolen late thirteenth as a See State v juror in assessing Mitchell 99 3342 p 8 The fact that the record contains evidence which testimony accepted by a trier accepted by the trier of fact insufficient App finding the 2 200 00 constitutionally precluded from acting are In a jury rejected the hypothesis of innocence presented by namely that she reasonably believed that she legally acquired We La testimony that hypothesis guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises it is clear the guilty model vehicles for what v own jury reasonably rejects the State of fact does not render the evidence v Quinn 479 SO 2d 592 596 La 1 Cir 1985 After in the light beyond a a innocence having a thorough review of the record most favorable to the State reasonable doubt greater than The defendant excessive s excessive sentence and Article I punishment any rational trier of fact could have found was hypothesis of guilty of the illegal possession of stolen things 500 00 fourth and fifth assignments of error address the issue of The defendant argues the trial sentence viewing the evidence and to the exclusion of every reasonable that the defendant value I am convinced that denying the motion court erred in imposing to reconsider sentence 9 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits the imposition of excessive Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 894 1 sets forth the factors for the trial court to consider when imposing sentence While the entire checklist of Article 894 1 need not be recited the record must reflect the trial court considered the criteria a excessive an State v Although Sepulvado sentence falls within 367 SO 2d 762 767 adequately statutory limits it may be La 1979 A sentence is considered constitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense punishment nothing v Andrews The trial court has limits more considered in are State justice is than and such a a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and grossly disproportionate if when the crime and A sentence is considered suffering 454 or to light of the harm done 94 0842 8 9 pp great discretion in La it shocks one society a sentence sense within the statutory sentence will not be set aside as excessive in the absence manifest abuse of discretion See State Holts v of 655 So 2d 448 App 1 Cir 5 5 95 imposing s 1245 525 So 2d 1241 La of App a 1 Cir 1988 The articulation of the factual basis for not an rigid or mechanical there has not been full La 1982 sentence imposed remand compliance with Article 894 The trial judge should goal of Article 894 1 is the Where the record compliance with its provisions adequate factual basis for the 475 478 a sentence 1 clearly shows is unnecessary State even lanclos v review the defendant s where 419 So 2d personal history his prior criminal record the seriousness of the offense the likelihood that he will commit another crime and his than confinement potential for rehabilitation through correctional services other State v Jones 398 SO 2d 1049 In the instant matter labor the trial court 1051 1052 imposed for judgment trial court stated in at 1981 three year sentence at hard a While the trial court did not mention Article 894 1 reasons La by it is clear from name sentencing that it considered the article sentencing the At pertinent part The defendant does not have receiving stolen goods a significant record but that was some time in the She had a previous past was working at the family time this happened and what is particularly troublesome to the Court is that she has steadily and steadfastly maintained that she thought she owned these vehicles which from this Court s standpoint is just ludicrous The Court is familiar that she has If she had under the circumstances Judge we were in a bad situation because of the circumstances that She a come to we were this Court and said needed to get look out of Marrero there you know while legally it is Hurricane justification but certainly a lot of things happened during Katrina which certainly law enforcement was not going to get involved in given the circumstances and the Court could have understood certain things The story in this case is I bought two cars that are valued not a somewhere between 20 and 40 000 I have no papers no its title I don t know who I bought them from notary and I own two cars I didn t do And a Bill of Sale simply it does There not wash was no under the circumstances of this matter The maximum imprisonment sentence one is not La 5 R 14 69 B 1 is ten years Considering the trial court s careful analysis of the circumstances and the fact that the defendant than pursuant to third the possible maximum grossly disproportionate unconstitutionally sentenced to was excessive sentence to the only three years imprisonment the sentence imposed by the trial severity of the offense and The trial court did not err in or therefore less court is not denying the defendant s motion to reconsider sentence For the above defendant reasons I would affirm the conviction and sentence of the

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.