State Of Louisiana VS Chester L. Redmond, III
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 KA 0072 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ll fi CHESTER L REDMOND III Judgment Rendered JUL 1 4 2010 APPEALED FROM THE TWENTY THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ASCENSION STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 24714 DIVISION A THE HONORABLE RALPH TUREAU JUDGE Ricky L Babin District Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Donaldsonville Louisiana State of Louisiana and Donald D Candell Assistant District Attorney Gonzales Louisiana Gwendolyn K Brown Louisiana Appellate Project Baton Rouge Louisiana Attorney for Defendant Appellant Chester L Redmond III BEFORE PARRO KUHN AND MCDONALD JJ WDONALD J The defendant Chester L Redmond III was charged by grand jury indictment with one count of molestation of a juvenile a violation of La R S 2 81 14 and pled not guilty Following a jury trial he was found guilty as charged by unanimous verdict He was sentenced to fifty years at hard labor with twentyfive years of the sentence without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence He now appeals designating the following assignments of error 1 The trial court erred by denying the motion for mistrial after the State elicited other crimes evidence 2 The trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence 3 The trial court erred by failing to comply with the sentencing mandates of La Code Crim P art 894 1 4 The defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel as a result of his counsel failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence to preserve s for appellate review his right to object on specific grounds to the excessiveness of his sentence For the following reasons we affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS Kimberly Rodney testified at trial She was the victim S baby sL s sitter in March 2007 During that month the victim told Rodney that Chester had been telling her nasty things and locking her in the bathroom The victim told Rodney that Chester had made the victim watch nasty stuff had touched her private parts had made her touch his private parts and had licked her The 1 The victim is referenced herein only by her initials See La R 46 S 18440 2 victim told Rodney that Chester had white stuff coming out of his private part The victim also told Rodney that Chester had told her not to tell anyone about what he had been doing to her The victim mother also testified at trial She indicated that in 2007 the s defendant was her sister boyfriend and lived with her sister at their mother s s house The victim had visited the home while the defendant was there and had spent the night there After learning of the victim claims the victim mother s s had her examined by Dr Quinn a pediatrician Dr Quinn found that the victim s hymen was not intact Dr John Knapp also testified at trial He examined the victim approximately one month after the alleged molestation She told him that at her shouse the defendant had touched her between her legs had told grandmother her to shut up had shown her his private parts had grabbed and shaken his private parts and had touched her backside Upon examining the victim Dr Knapp found bilateral redness involving the labia and that the hymen was disturbed but no evidence of recent trauma On March 22 2007 the victim was interviewed at the Child Advocacy Center in Gonzales She indicated that Chester Leon had given her touches that were not okay She indicated that in her aunt room he had touched her between s her legs with his hand and had touched her backside with his penis She indicated that she was wearing pink nightclothes with angels on them She indicated that he pulled her pants down she cried and he told her to shut up She indicated that in the middle room he had asked her to touch his penis She indicated that she told him to leave her alone and he told her that she would get into trouble if she did not touch his penis She indicated that her mother then 3 arrived to pick her up The State introduced into evidence the victim birth certificate indicating s that her date of birth was December 25 2000 and the defendant marriage s certificate indicating that his date of birth was May 1 1970 OTHER CRIMES EVIDENCE In assignment of error number 1 the defendant contends the trial court erred in denying the motion for mistrial after the State elicited other crimes evidence and erred in failing to admonish the jury to disregard the other crimes evidence Upon motion of a defendant a mistrial shall be ordered and in a jury case the jury dismissed when prejudicial conduct in or outside the courtroom makes it impossible for the defendant to obtain a fair trial or when authorized by La Code Crim P arts 770 or 771 La Code Crim P art 775 The determination as to whether or not a mistrial should be granted under La Code Crim P art 775 is within the sound discretion of the trial court and a denial of a motion for mistrial will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion State v Young 569 2d So 570 583 La App 1st Cir 1990 writ denied 575 So 386 La 1991 2d La Code Crim P art 770 provides for a mandatory mistrial when a 2 remark within the hearing of the jury is made by the judge the district attorney or a court official and such remark refers to another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible However remarks by witnesses fall under the discretionary mistrial provisions of La Code Crim P art 771 La Code Crim P art 771 in pertinent part provides In the following cases upon the request of the defendant or the state the court shall promptly admonish the jury to disregard a remark or comment made during the trial or in argument within the hearing of the jury when the remark is irrelevant or immaterial and of such a 4 nature that it might create prejudice against the defendant or the state in the mind of the jury 2 When the remark or comment is made by a witness or person other than the judge district attorney or a court official regardless of whether the remark or comment is within the scope of Article 770 In such cases on motion of the defendant the court may grant a mistrial if it is satisfied that an admonition is not sufficient to assure the defendant a fair trial A mistrial pursuant to the provisions of Article 771 is at the discretion of the trial court and should be granted only where the prejudicial remarks of the witness make it impossible for the defendant to obtain a fair trial See State v Dixon 620 2d So 904 911 La App 1 st Cir 1993 The jurisprudence interpreting La Code Crim P art 771 has held that unsolicited and unresponsive testimony is not 2 chargeable against the State to provide a ground for mandatory reversal of a conviction State v LeBlanc 618 So 949 960 La App 1st Cir 1993 writ 2d denied 95 2216 La 10 679 So 1372 96 4 2d During the presentation of its case the defense called the victim to the stand and asked her if she always told the truth The victim stated n so much ot She indicated however that she had told the truth about everything the defendant had done to her The defense then called Tawana Dupard to the stand In response to questioning by the defense Dupard indicated she was the defendant sgirlfriend that the defendant lived with her in her mother house that she kept her bedroom door s locked when she was not home that the defendant had never been alone with the victim and that the victim father watched pornographic movies s On cross examination the following colloquy occurred between the State and Dupard 5 Q And prior to this the victim has no reason to make something up about the defendant nor does the victim father or the victim s s mother right A 1 wouldn tknow ma am Well you had a good relationship so you don know of t anything that would cause the victim the victim mother or the s s victim father to make this up about the defendant prior to this Q happening except for the fact that it happened A Well you see on February I think it might be a Monday I don t know if it the 18th or the 19th my it was a Sunday I think and the s defendant had went out And Trisha Cox said that the defendant had broke into their home and so the police come to the house and when they come my cousin said he had dropped the defendant off already and we didn hear him knock on the door so the police come and we t opened the door we told them they could come in I only remember one police officer then cause I didn tremember the other one was Dwayne Gibson And he said there was no need to come in and she told my sister the next morning keep your children from the defendant cause he a molester So not a month later s The defense objected and demanded a mistrial arguing that the witness had referred to another crime The State replied that it had expected a no response from the witness and had even asked a leading question i e there no reason that s she knew of why the victim father the victim or the victim mother would s s make up anything about the defendant to obtain that response The defense again demanded a mistrial and the court denied the demand The defense objected to the court ruling and the court noted the objection and stated It will be s addressed on closing argument After the defense presented testimony from another witness the court recessed the case for lunch but allowed the defense to argue its motion for mistrial outside the presence of the jury The defense argued it was obvious from the line of questioning used by the State in examining Tawana Dupard that the State wanted her to disclose the fact that the defendant was a registered sex offender The State T replied it had not questioned Tawana Dupard concerning any prior crimes or offenses by the defendant but had asked if there was any reason for the victim the s victim father or the victim mother to make this up about the defendant The s State argued that rather than answer the question Tawana Dupard began talking about Trisha Cox who was not a witness in the trial The defense argued that based on the State line of questioning of Tawana Dupard t question the s s here no State wanted the witness to say that the defendant was a sex offender The court denied the motion for mistrial noting that there was no evidence before the jury of the defendant being a registered sex offender or of his having been convicted of any offense and the c will address that during the jury instructions ourt In charging the jury the court stated that the defendant was presumed innocent until each element of the crime necessary to constitute his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the jury was only to consider evidence admitted during the trial The court did not reference the fact that the defendant was a registered sex offender There was no abuse of discretion in the court refusal to grant a mistrial s Tawana Dupard reference to the defendant being a molester was unsolicited and s unresponsive testimony and thus was not chargeable against the State Further there was no error in the court not admonishing the jury to disregard the s challenged testimony Although defense counsel objected he failed to ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the unresponsive testimony La Code Crim P art 771 mandates a request for an admonishment State v Jack 554 So 1292 2d 1296 La App 1st Cir 1989 writ denied 560 So 20 La 1990 2d This assignment of error is without merit rl EXCESSIVE SENTENCE LA CODE CRIM P ART 894 INEFFECTIVE 1 ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL The defendant combines assignments of error numbers 2 3 and 4 He argues the trial court imposed an excessive sentence on him the trial court failed to specify why it sentenced him so harshly and trial defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to move for reconsideration of sentence We will address the defendant claim of excessive sentence even in the s absence of a timely motion to reconsider sentence or a contemporaneous objection because it would be necessary to do so as part of the analysis of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim See State v Bickham 98 1839 pp 78 La App 1st Cir 6739 So 887 891 92 99 25 2d The Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth items which must be considered by the trial court before imposing sentence La Code Crim P art 1 894 The trial court need not recite the entire checklist of Article 894 1 but the record must reflect that it adequately considered the criteria In light ofthe criteria expressed by Article 894 1 a review for individual excessiveness should consider the circumstances of the crime and the trial court stated reasons and factual basis s for its sentencing decision State v Hurst 99 2868 p 10 La App 1st Cir 00 3 10 797 So 75 83 writ denied 2000 3053 La 1015101 798 So 962 2d 2d Article I section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits the imposition of excessive punishment Although a sentence may be within statutory limits it may violate a defendant constitutional right against excessive punishment and is s subject to appellate review Generally a sentence is considered excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime or is nothing more than the needless imposition 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 is so disproportionate as to shock one sense ofjustice A trial s judge is given wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within statutory limits and the sentence imposed should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion Hurst 992868 at pp 10 11 797 So 2d at 83 A claim of ineffectiveness of counsel is analyzed under the two pronged test developed by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v Washington 466 S U 668 104 S 2052 80 L 674 1984 In order to establish that his Ct 2d Ed trial attorney was ineffective the defendant must first show that the attorney s performance was deficient which requires a showing that counsel made errors so serious that he was not functioning as counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment Secondly the defendant must prove that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense This element requires a showing that the errors were so serious that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial the defendant must prove actual prejudice before relief will be granted It is not sufficient for the defendant to show that the error had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding Rather he must show that but for the counsel sunprofessional errors there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the trial would have been different Further it is unnecessary to address the issues of both counsel s performance and prejudice to the defendant if the defendant makes an inadequate showing on one of the components State v Serigny 610 So 857 859 60 La 2d App 1st Cir 1992 writ denied 614 So 1263 La 1993 2d Whoever commits the crime of molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of thirteen years shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than 9 twentyfive years nor more than life imprisonment At least twenty five years of the sentence imposed shall be served without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence La R 14 prior to amendment by 2008 La S 81 1 E 2 Acts No 33 1 The trial court sentenced the defendant to fifty years at hard labor with twenty five years of the sentence without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence In sentencing the defendant the trial court stated that this was the case of a thirtynine yearold black male who was officially classified as a third felony offender The court noted it had ordered a presentence investigation report PSI had received that report had made that report available to the defendant through his attorney and would attach the report and make it a part of the court reasons s for sentence The court noted that the PSI indicated the defendant had two previous felony convictions for crimes against the person on February 22 1999 he was convicted of second degree battery and sentenced to eighteen months at hard labor on July 29 2003 he was convicted of accessory after the fact to aggravated rape and was sentenced to five years at hard labor but the sentence was suspended and he was given five years probation while under probation supervision he committed the instant offense of molestation of a juvenile and the victim was six years old A thorough review of the record reveals the trial court adequately considered the criteria of Article 894 and did not manifestly abuse its discretion in imposing 1 the sentence See La Code Crim P art 894 A 13 112 21 13 Further the sentence imposed was not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense and thus was not unconstitutionally excessive 10 With regard to the defendant ineffective assistance of counsel claim we s note even assuming arguendo that defense counsel performed deficiently in failing to timely move for reconsideration of the sentence the defendant suffered no prejudice from the deficient performance because this court considered the s defendant excessive sentence argument in connection with the ineffective assistance of counsel claim These assignments of error are without merit PROTECTIVE ORDER La R 15 S 440 6requires a videotape of a child statement admitted under s La R 15 be preserved under a protective order of the court to protect the S 440 5 privacy of the child Accordingly it is hereby ordered that the videotaped statement of the victim be placed under a protective order See State v Ledet 96 0142 p 19 La App 1st Cir 11 694 So 336 347 writ denied 963029 96 8 2d La 9 701 So 163 97 19 2d CONVICTION ORDER ISSUED AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED PROTECTIVE
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.
