State Of Louisiana VS Richard G. Pramann
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2009 KA 2262 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS fl t RICHARD G PRAMANN Judgment Rendered May 7 2010 Appealed from the TwentySecond Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Trial Court Number 425695 Honorable William J Knight Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Counsel for Appellee Covington LA State of Louisiana Kathryn W Landry Baton Rouge LA Mary E Roper Baton Rouge LA Counsel for DefendantAppellant Richard G Pramann BEFORE WHIPPLE HUGHES AND WELCH JJ WHIPPLE J The defendant Richard G Pramann was charged by bill of information with aggravated battery a violation of LSA R 14 The defendant pled not guilty S 34 and following a jury trial was found guilty as charged The defendant was sentenced to nine years at hard labor The defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence which was denied The defendant now appeals designating two assignments of error We affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS On January 13 2007 Kenny Kellett had a New Orleans Saints game party at his house in Covington The defendant and Kenneth Wayne Kreider known as who were at the party became engaged in an altercation The defendant and Wayne were nextdoor neighbors who knew each other The Wayne defendant was asked to leave which he did Wayne remained at the party At about 3 o a January 14 Wayne was walking home He 00 clock m began crossing through the defendant yard to get to his trailer s was standing on the porch of his own trailer arguing again The defendant Wayne and the defendant began After cursing at each other Wayne walked toward his home Moments later Wayne felt a sharp pain in his back and right side Wayne spun around to find the defendant had just cut him with a knife They began fighting Wayne was not armed As they wrestled on the ground Michael Kellett Kenny s brother who was at the defendant strailer broke up the fight The defendant had cut Wayne in several places with the knife Wayne received a laceration to his forehead lacerations to his midsection and a puncture wound to his shoulder The defendant told Deputy Bubba Stipe an investigating officer with the St Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office that Wayne was in his yard trespassing and he had to defend himself The defendant did not testify at trial 2 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS and 2 1 In these assignments of error the defendant argues respectively that his sentence was excessive and the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider the sentence Specifically the defendant contends that his mental disabilities impaired his ability to follow societal norms for conflict resolution and as such he should have been given probation The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of excessive punishment Although a sentence falls within statutory limits it may be excessive State v Sepulvado 367 So 2d 762 767 La 1979 A sentence is considered constitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense or is nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering A sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the harm to society it shocks the sense of justice State v Andrews 94 0842 pp 89 La App 1st Cir 5 655 So 95 2d 448 454 The trial court has great discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory limits and such a sentence will not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion See State v Holts 525 So 2d 1241 1245 La App 1st Cir 1988 On appellate review of a sentence the relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate State v Thomas 98 1144 pp 1 2 La 10 719 So 2d 49 50 per curiam quoting State v 98 9 Humphrey 445 So 2d 1155 1165 La 1984 Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 894 sets forth the factors for 1 the trial court to consider when imposing sentence While the entire checklist of LSA C art 894 need not be recited the record must reflect the trial court P Cr 1 adequately considered the criteria State v Brown 2002 2231 p 4 La App 1st 3 Cir 5 849 So 2d 566 569 03 9 The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of LSA C art 894 P Cr 1not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions Where the record clearly shows an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed remand is unnecessary even where there has not been full compliance with LSAC art 894 State v Lanclos 419 So 2d 475 478 P Cr 1 La 1982 The trial judge should review the defendant spersonal history his prior criminal record the seriousness of the offense the likelihood that he will commit another crime and his potential for rehabilitation through correctional services other than confinement See State v Jones 398 So 2d 1049 1051 52 La 1981 It is clear in its reasons for the sentence that the trial court thoroughly considered LSAC art 894 1 as well as the defendant medical maladies in P Cr s arriving at an appropriate sentence for the defendant The Court in considering sentencing in connection with this matter has considered the presentence investigation which is dated July 2 2009 provided by Probation and Parole The Court also reviewed in preparation for sentencing today a presentence investigation report dated July 29 1987 from a prior conviction that Mr Pramann has on a misdemeanor of aggravated assault The Court has considered the sentencing guidelines under 894 1 and makes the following findings The Court notes that during the course of this trial several things became abundantly clear Mr Pramann was in a situation where the jury felt th he was guilty of at the crime of aggravated battery and returned a verdict in connection with that matter on May 11 2009 As the Court listened to the testimony throughout the course of the trial it was very apparent that Mr Pramann has had a lengthy history of mental illness and self medication with marijuana for that mental illness which was fairly clear for the record It also very clear to the Court that the case s which was before the Court involves great risk of death or great bodily harm I think there was a point during the course of the trial when out of the presence of the jury the Court was compelled to quip Now that a knife a la Crocodile Dundee when I saw the s weapon which was utilized in this particular crime The weapon utilized for the assault being what I call a fantasy knife for lack of a ll better term approximately a foot in length with significant blade length of probably 9 to 10 inches The Court notes that based on the information received in both the presentence investigations that a long history of aggressive behavior and a long history of non compliance with prescribed 0 medications exists so there is a very high likelihood that any action other than either confinement in a psychiatric facility or confinement in a prison setting would result in further crimes being committed There was obviously great danger of death in this case because of the weapon previously mentioned The fact that Mr Pramann and the victim in this crime are next door neighbors mitigates strongly against any consideration of probation in this case The Court further notes that because of the non compliance on the mental health issues and because of the history that although this is the first felony offense for Mr Pramann it is a continuation of a long pattern of behavior For those reasons the Court feels that a sentence of nine years in the Department of Corrections at hard labor is appropriate in this case The Court will hold the matter open under the provisions of Article 881 for a period of 90 days for consideration of any request 1 alternative to a prison setting under the Nicola Cotton legislation I will allow counsel for that limited purpose only to appear in these proceedings and will set a hearing upon request I not going to set a m hearing unless requested The defendant faced a maximum sentence of ten years at hard labor and a five thousand dollar fine and was sentenced to nine years at hard labor See LSA S 34 R 14 Considering the trial court careful analysis of the circumstances and s the defendant history of aggressive behavior and drug abuse the nineyear s sentence imposed by the trial court is not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense and therefore is not unconstitutionally excessive Accordingly the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider sentence These assignments of error are without merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 5
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.
