State Of Louisiana VS Rodney Jermaine Watts

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 KA 0013 STATE OF LOUISIANA VS RODNEY JERMAINE WATTS JUDGMENT RENDERED JUN 0 6 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DOCKET NUMBER 370 023 DIVISION I PARISH OF ST TAMMANY STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE REGINALD T BADEAUX III JUDGE WALTER P REED ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE DISTRICT ATTORNEY STATE OF LOUISIANA COVINGTON LA KA THRYN W LANDRY SA TON ROUGE LA MARGARET S SOLLARS THIBODAUX 141 J ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT LA EFORE RODNEY JERMAINE WATTS A TER C J PPLE ND MC 12 n40rJ 1fiD j LZ ONALD II CARTER J The defendant Rodney Jennaine information with three counts of the defendant defendant was convicted was sentenced benefIt of parole to probation the sentences to run matter appeal the was on seeking to have LSA R S was the one or fifty hundred years suspenSIOn of of charged by bill guilty a Following all three on at sentence The defendant a jury The counts hard labor without for each with count While the appealed multiple offender bill of information adjudicated felony not imprisomnent years state fIled Following year sentences pled charged as consecutively second a He suspension the defendant 15 529 1 adjudicated fIfty or was attempted fIrst degree murder violations of LSA R S 14 30 and LSA R S 14 27 trial Watts a habitual offender pursuant to multiple offender hearing the defendant a habitual offender The trial court vacated previously imposed and resentenced the defendant to imprisonment of sentence at hard for each labor without benefit of count with the probation sentences to run consecutively Subsequently this we affinned the convictions defendant s excessive had imposed 5 6 05 new error in habitual offender court v on adjudications and with instructions court 1 Cir App La 2 3 06 unpublished opinion this adjudicated the defendant all three convictions sentences See State 2 La the 922 again appealed seeking review of his court such Watts 04 1926 writ denied 05 1680 In another the fact that the trial as of consideration pretermitted See State sentences appeal wherein claim based upon the fact that the trial unpublished offender and sentenced him the trial and Thereafter the defendant habitual offender found sentence sentences 903 So 2d 21 So 2d 1175 considered the defendant s court v habitual We vacated the and remanded the Watts a court 05 1549 matter to La App 1 Cir 3 24 06 925 So 2d 772 s withdrawal of its resentenced the state imprisonment sentence on at defendant the to The trial sentences original hard labor without probation parole court following the fifty of or again ordered that the assignment unconstitutionally of error The defendant that the trial excessive sentences and in now court failing to court years suspension of sentences The defendant moved for reconsideration of the The trial court denied the motion single On remand multiple offender bill of infonnation the trial each count consecutively unpublished sentences appeals urging erred in provide lun in a imposing reasons for the consecutive sentences We affinn the sentences FACTS In the defendant as s first appeal the facts of this case were summarized follows Shortly after midnight on June 19 2003 the St Tammany Parish Sheriff s Office received a 911 call indicating that two black males were fighting at a residence on C S Owens Road in Madisonville advised the dispatcher that one of the had Deputies The caller Louisiana men involved in the fight Jeffrey Mayo who worked in the Criminal Patrol Division of the St Tammany Parish Sheriff s Office were dispatched to the residence Upon their arrival the deputies began questioning those who remained present following the fight a gun One of the informed Deputy Ronnie Plaisance and men questioned was Paul Burnett He that he and the defendant had previously been involved in a verbal argument and struggle involving a child that had escalated into a physical altercation Mayo Burnett initiated the 911 call and then handed the his fiancé Peaches Scott who phone to provided additional information to the operator After they placed the 911 call defendant attempted to flee the scene by entering his van and attempting to back down the driveway Upon hearing the patrol units He ultimately approaching defendant feared apprehension decided to leave the van and to head north on foot through the woods towards Galatas Road At some point defendant retrieved a shotgun that he had previously hidden in the woods 3 While Deputies Plaisance and Mayo conducting investigation dispatched other sheriff s officers towards Galatas Road to set up a perimeter of the area While Deputies Plaisance and Mayo were questioning witnesses they heard a loud boom and several popping sounds They described these sounds as consistent with the sounds of a shotgun being fired followed by several pistol shots Next the deputies heard over the radio that two officers and the perpetrator had been shot Deputy Plaisance headed towards Galatas Road When he arrived he observed Deputy Mark Barrios lying on the ground Deputy James R Taylor slumped over by a patrol unit and Sergeant Bryan Wetzel to the right of the patrol unit He observed the defendant lying about fifteen yards in front of the officers on the ground their State v Lieutenant Joe Jarrell Watts 04 1926 The trial and who Sergeant Wetzel were to the responded to pursue led Galatas Road pointed towards by pointing his the was position with a feet his legs and his abdomen required Once later detennined immediately which a to area was was He observed shotgun in his hand The shotgun Deputy Barrios illuminated was was hit hospitalized for right thigh right hospitalized for the area the defendant raised the be loaded with birdshot Deputy Taylor shot in the upper He defendant single shot Fearing for their lives returned fire surgery in the Equipped with night vision towards the defendant officers was Upon arrival by Sergeant Wetzel entered the dark wooded towards the officers and fired Deputy Barrios the defendant ground flashlight shotgun which Tammany Parish Sheriff s officials Shortly thereafter the crouched down in a seated was among the St domestic disturbance call binoculars the officers near 3 4 at pp testimony established that Deputy Barrios Deputy Taylor these officers decided area were pointed it all three by gunshot in his four to five days knee and left foot three to four days EXCESSIVE SENTENCES In his sole year consecutive assignment sentences of error the defendant contends the three imposed by 4 the trial court in this fifty case are unconstitutionally excessive trial court failed to More provide specifically the defendant sufficient reasons consecutive sentences for convictions justify to of the out arising the avers that the imposition of same of course conduct Article I imposition Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution of excessive excessive if it is nothing suffering sentence State Lanieu denied So 2d 1276 v statutory limits 98 1260 99 1259 Sepulvado 12 p La given wide discretion and the sentence La 367 App 10 8 99 in the 2d So it La of 1993 violate may 762 767 1 Cir 4 199 750 So 2d 962 imposition it should imposed by absence of manifest abuse of discretion 751 severity of the offense 1280 La be set State aside v pain and Although to appellate State 97 as Lobato 89 a a defendant s a 1979 However is or 2d So 734 of sentences within not the constitutionally right against excessive punishment and is subject State reVIew Dorthey 623 v the to is sentence purposeless and needless infliction a be within may constitutional grossly disproportionate than more A punishment prohibits trial v writ court is statutory limits excessive in the 603 So 2d 739 La 1992 As a general rule sentences maXllnum serious violations of the relevant statute State La v Mance 00 1903 p 4 are and for the reserved for the most worst type of offenders App 1 Cir 5 11 01 797 So 2d 718 721 As counts of previously noted the defendant in this attempted first degree murder punishable by imprisoillnent fifty at years without benefit of See LSA R S 14 27 D not parole probation to less than or ten nor more suspension of its amendment 5 convicted of three Attempted first degree murder is hard labor for 1 prior case was by 2003 La than sentence Acts No 745 S 1 14 30 C The defendant penalty of imprisomnent probation parole hard labor for at suspension of or was sentenced on each conviction court also ordered that these sentences be served note that the sentences imposed in this case are maximum years without benefit of fifty sentence to the The trial Thus consecutively we within the statutory limits The Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth items that must be considered art 894 1 894 1 State 942 by the trial court before The trial but the record court must need La goal of LSA C Cr P When factual basis concludes sentence or art 894 1 La reviewing lacking a not a App rigid sentence statement of that the sentence may be affirmed 1 Cir or remand Lanclos 419 So 2d 475 478 La 1982 La App 1 Cir 115 99 11 13 00 The art reasons for v P the is the with its lacking if this court record the resentencing art 894 1 a or State Johnson 99 0385 p 7 745 So 2d 217 221 writ denied 00 0829 La 774 So 2d 971 imposition of consecutive 883 which sentences is governed by LSA C Cr P provides in pertinent part lfthe defendant is convicted of two the State sentence compliance supported by a a be excessive to sentencing is otherwise without mechanical alleged the criteria writ denied 565 So 2d supplementation merely for compliance with LSA C Cr v See LSA C Cr P adequately considered The articulation of the factual basis for 1990 provisions 11 sentence recite the entire checklist of Article reflect that it Herrin 562 So 2d 1 v not imposing offenses based on constituting parts of a common scheme or plan the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively same This article act or transaction or more or specifically excludes from its expressly directs to be served consecutively 6 scope sentences that the court State v Rogers 95 1485 p 11 La 1 Cir 9 27 96 App 681 So 2d 994 96 2626 La discretion to order sentences to State 5 197 Rollins v 693 So 2d 749 32 686 p 899 writ denied 00 0549 consecutive sentences from So 2d a single at 221 of conduct court course 13 La 2d So 00 of conduct even 1116 1123 La criminal history State are v Lewis Johnson v not court s 749 So 2d 890 The imposition 1 Cir 1989 the of acts of of 7 single a State Ferguson v of the offense the victim the to 646 La remorse La and risk the 1 Cir App to the 4 Cir 1987 App to the potential for justification for consecutive 1290 course the trial danger posed by the defendant lack of 745 Some of those factors include dangerousness serve as 430 So 2d 1286 out sentence Parker 503 So 2d 643 v 99 0385 at p necessarily excessive if imposing and the Additional factors that may multiplicity 768 So 2d 1278 the harm done defendant s rehabilitation include 22 99 if the convictions arise App viciousness of the crimes State trial a requires particular justification when the crimes arise However public safety it is within App 2 Cir 12 15 9 consecutive sentences defendant s Thus consecutively rather than concurrently La considers other factors when 540 State run 1000 writs denied 96 2609 sentences public safety writ denied 435 So 2d 433 La 1983 We have reviewed the nature of the sentences imposed herein and considering the offenses and the circumstances of this the trial court s broad claim that sufficient sentencing discretion Contrary aggravating circumstances are the record reveals that the maximum consecutive justified As the trial court intentionally attempting of duty warrant the to case we find to the lacking sentences no abuse of defendant s our are review of adequately correctly reasoned the defendant s actions of kill three imposition police officers of maximum 7 as they served sentences in the line Under these o8 circumstances the to the severity ofjustice of the offenses Furthermore the the offenses sentences or Thus grossly disproportionate disproportionate multiplicity of the although the trial judge did mitigating sentences factor in this imposed As compliance with LSA This neither acts to as clearly shows assigmnent For the shock and the serious our sense nature of multiple gunshot wounds inflicted upon police officers provides factual grounds record nor so are provide sufficient justification for the imposition range and year sentences fifty that case are previously C Cr P an art aggravating find that the record in this we more than adequate to when there has not been full noted even 894 1 remand is unnecessary where the adequate factual basis for the reasons SENTENCES AFFIRMED case support the sentence imposed of error lacks merit foregoing close of consecutive articulate every not at the defendant s sentences are affirmed STATE OF LOUISIANA STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS FIRST CIRCUIT RODNEY JERMAINE WATTS L V McDONALD J NUMBER 2007 KA 0013 Dissenting While I understand the position taken decision to affiml the This sentence by the majority was a senseless I disagree with dangerous were not injured and required hospitalization for up hit the by A tlial shotgun blast accordance with the facts of the defendant not to five days judge should tailor and the case did it make any effOli to The third was patiiculars concelning the My review of the record indicates the trial nor Two each sentence in comi in adequately comply with the sentencing guidelines in 894 1 that act endangered three officers in the performance of upholding the law the individualize the this did case C Cr P La sentences to ati this patiicular defendant It is well settled that required by Aliic1e reviewing Dokes 1202 App 1st Cir 1983 judge are an s reasons essential aid in to imposing an La La see 1981 State 1979 also State App 3rd Cir 11 6 96 appellate Thus v v a per curiam Reynolds Roberts trial State 683 2d So account for the the and the offense So 2d at 1279 of sentence State v patiicularizing Dokes 398 So 2d at State v Spencer 374 v 1335 judge is required as court when 435 So 2d 1275 record both the considerations he has taken into imposition sentence for excessiveness and abuse of discretion 398 So 2d 1025 26 So 2d 1195 La 1 894 sentence a trial a 1279 La 1340 1342 to state for the and the factual basis sentence to 1026 State v the offender Reynolds 436 The majority relies sentence may is otherwise a supported by the record sentence or In Johnson the defendant widow s failed to concunent or court consecutive in articulating demonstrates the concunent sentences out of a single act Unfortunately reasons guidelines imposed did court for utilized the robbery The sentences imposed Because the trial comi provisions contained in article case or sentences imposed constitutes enor court to and 2 did any did not an the imposing report to record assist clearly The sentences arose act not articulate any justification for the mention any of the 1 894 and did I think this court lacks The failure of the trial for aggravated burglary determination of whether the maximum consecutive excessive to the imposing reasons robbery was a separate in the instant for reasons consecutive and count one consecutively pre sentence a was to concunent sentences sentences for the mmed sentences the He the break in of the involving not state concunent court robbery and the sentence gave the the trial justification for the of his automobile he gave extensive sentences and The later armed sentences or two counts sentences for the maximum consecutive a man of two counts of armed he reasons why he a sentenced the defendant While the length of the various remand in this a at robbery the give an was On the aggravated burglmy other sentences failed to of reasons for the statement actually supports armed with sentence firearm and broke into charged with and found guilty On the later armed a court a While there he threatened her and robbed her home residence the trial give if the resentencing when the trial even gunpoint Shortly after leaving he robbed of support its position that to remand for a However I believe Johnson sentence elderly Johnson v be affhmed without factual basis for the case State on not articulate any adequate sentences articulate any requires that the basis for imposed reasons case a are for the be remanded to the trial court for proper consideration of the Article 894 1 justification For these guidelines and for consecutive sentences reasons I respectfully dissent would remand the case for resentencing 3 vacate the sentences and

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.