State Of Louisiana VS Joseph Waldron Johnson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 KA 0127 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JOSEPH WALDRON JOHNSON Judgment Rendered June 11 2010 Appealed from the Twenty Second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany Louisiana Trial Court Number 406 426 Honorable William J Knight Judge Walter P Reed District Attorney Covington LA Attorneys for State Appellee and Kathryn Landry Baton Rouge LA Frederick Kroenke Baton Rouge LA Attorney for Defendant Appellant Joseph Waldron Johnson BEFORE WHIPPLE HUGHES AND WELCH JJ WELCH J The defendant Joseph Waldron Johnson was charged by bill of information with attempted second degree murder a violation of La R 14 and 14 S 27 1 30 He pled not guilty and following a jury trial the defendant was found guilty of the responsive offense of aggravated battery a violation of La R 14 The S 34 defendant filed a motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal which was denied He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment at hard labor The defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence which was denied The defendant now appeals designating three assignments of error We affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS On September 9 2005 at about 2 a Quinton Richard Gary Nordgren 00 m Jr and the defendant were talking and drinking beer on the porch of the s defendant trailer on Kuhn Road in Covington Richard worked with the defendant and lived with him in the defendant strailer They both worked for the ss defendant father company Nordgren had stopped by earlier that night to talk to the defendant about some work the defendant might have available for him This period of time was shortly after Hurricane Katrina and the defendant with a small crew was clearing out fallen trees from the property of neighbors The defendant and Nordgren became involved in an altercation When the arguing subsided Nordgren walked down the steps of the porch and the defendant went inside Moments later the defendant came back outside with a Remington 243 automatic rifle and shot Nordgren in the right shoulder Richard called 911 Because of the extent of his injury Nordgren spent over a month in the hospital As a result ofhis injury Nordgren has very little use of his right arm Richard Nordgren and the defendant all testified at trial Following his arrest the defendant gave a taped statement to the police Richard also gave a taped statement to the police The statements were played for the jury at trial 2 Each of these witnesses provided a somewhat different account of the events that transpired the night the defendant shot Nordgren Richard testified at trial that Nordgren and the defendant got into an argument about the defendant exwife Nordgren grabbed the defendant by the s neck put him against the trailer and said Bitch I kill you Richard tried to ll break them up Nordgren started walking to his truck Richard did not hear Nordgren say anything as he walked away The defendant retrieved a rifle and shot Nordgren In his taped statement Richard told Detective Dale Galloway with the St Tammany Parish Sheriff Office that the altercation between Nordgren s and the defendant almost got physical Richard did not see any punches or kicks thrown and he did not see Nordgren with a weapon Richard stated that he had no idea why the defendant shot Nordgren and that they were friends At no time during his interview did Richard state that Nordgren said Bitch I kill you ll Detective Galloway testified at trial and confirmed that Richard in his interview never told him that Nordgren pushed the defendant against the trailer and said Bitch I kill you ll Nordgren testified at trial that he had known the defendant over twenty years On the night of the shooting all three of them were drinking beer and smoking marijuana Nordgren and the defendant got into an argument Nordgren then sat down The defendant threw a punch at Nordgren which glanced off sjaw Nordgren Nordgren grabbed the defendant and pushed him against the trailer Out of respect for the defendant two children who were in the trailer s Nordgren did not hit the defendant Nordgren told the defendant he did not want to work for him and not to call him again Nordgren walked to his truck and shortly thereafter Richard approached Nordgren asking about what had just transpired Nordgren then heard the defendant scream You m f When Nordgren turned he saw the defendant on his porch with a rifle The defendant then shot ki Nordgren Nordgren also testified that he did not say Bitch I kill you He ll further stated that he never told the defendant that he was going to his truck to get a gun He testified he had no gun in his truck and he never owned a 10mm automatic Detective Stacey Callendar with the St Tammany Parish Sheriff s Office testified at trial that no firearm was found in Nordgren truck Nordgren s had two DWI convictions a conviction for possession of cocaine and three convictions for possession of marijuana The defendant testified at trial that he had known Nordgren for twenty years According to the defendant Nordgren was smoking marijuana but the defendant was not because Nordgren would not share He and Nordgren argued over the s defendant exwife Nordgren began choking the defendant Nordgren released his grip and told the defendant he was going to kill him Nordgren walked off the porch Frightened the defendant went inside and retrieved a rifle According to the defendant he had always known Nordgren to carry a 10mm Glock automatic in his truck When the defendant opened the door he meant to fire a warning shot from his hip into the ground Instead from the threshold of his door the defendant shot Nordgren in his shoulder The defendant stated he did not aim the gun and that shooting Nordgren was an accident The defendant did not see Nordgren with a gun but assumed he had one since Nordgren said he was going to kill him and struck door was open When he shot Nordgren the defendant did not Nordgren have his glasses on which he usually wears for nearsightedness Also the defendant believed that the porch light was off when he shot Nordgren The defendant had two DWI convictions and two convictions for possession of marijuana Bryan Krentel and Richard Bernos testified at trial for the defense Krentel testified that he was in jail for DWI in 2008 when he saw Nordgren in a holding cell Regarding the shooting Nordgren told Krentel who also knows the 19 defendant that he Nordgren was mad at the defendant he was going to his truck to get his gun and he was going to kill that sonofa Krentel also had two convictions for simple battery Bernos testified at trial that he knew the defendant and the defendant sfather and to a lesser extent Nordgren Shortly after the shooting the defendant sfather asked Bernos to go to the hospital to see how Nordgren was doing In the hospital room Nordgren told Bemos that he and the defendant got into an argument Nordgren said that he grabbed the defendant by the throat strangled him until he passed out against the trailer then let him go The defendant came to went up the stairs and inside the trailer The defendant came back outside with a gun According to Bernos Nordgren said Oh now you a big bad m fer re Nordgren told the defendant he could have killed him but did not and n ow re you coming out with a gun and you going to be all fing bad Nordgren then re started walking toward the defendant when the defendant shot him Bernos had two DWI convictions and a conviction for possession of marijuana or barbiturates ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER 1 In his first assignment of error the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of aggravated battery Specifically the defendant contends that he shot Nordgren in self defense A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand as it violates Due Process See U Const amend XIV La Const art 1 S 2 The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt Jackson v Virginia 443 U 307 319 99 S 2781 2789 S Ct 61 L 560 1979 See also La C art 821 State v Ordodi 2006 2d Ed P Cr B 5 0207 p 10 La 11 946 So 654 660 State v Mussall 523 So 1305 06 29 2d 2d 1308 1309 La 1988 The Jackson standard of review incorporated in La P Cr C art 821 is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence both direct and circumstantial for reasonable doubt When analyzing circumstantial evidence La R 15 provides that the factfinder must be satisfied the overall S 438 evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence See State v Patorno 2001 2585 p 5 La App 1 Cir 6 822 So 141 144 The st 02 21 2d testimony of the victim alone is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense State v Orgeron 512 So 467 469 La App 1st Cir 1987 writ denied 519 2d 2d So 113 La 1988 While the defendant was charged with attempted second degree murder he was found guilty of aggravated battery Guilty of aggravated battery is a proper responsive verdict for a charge of attempted second degree murder La C P Cr art 814 4 A Prior to the 2006 amendment La R 14 provided S 19 The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person lawful possession provided that the force or s violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense and that this article shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide Louisiana Revised Statutes 14 provides 21 A person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict Louisiana Revised Statutes 14 defines battery to include the intentional 33 use of force or violence upon the person of another Louisiana Revised Statutes 34 14 defines aggravated battery as a battery committed with a dangerous weapon The fact that the defendant shot Nordgren in the shoulder with a rifle is not 9 in doubt The only remaining issue is whether the defendant acted in self defense In the non homicide situation a claim of self defense requires a dual inquiry first an objective inquiry into whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances and second a subjective inquiry into whether the force used was apparently necessary State v Pizzalato 93 1415 p 3 La App I Cir 10 94 7 644 So 712 714 writ denied 942755 La 3 650 So 1174 2d 95 10 2d In a homicide case the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not perpetrated in self defense State v Spears 504 So 974 978 2d La App 1st Cir writ denied 507 So 225 La 1987 However Louisiana 2d law is unclear as to who has the burden of proving self defense in a non homicide case and what the burden is State v Barnes 590 So 1298 1300 La App 1st 2d Cir 1991 In previous cases dealing with this issue this court has analyzed the evidence under both standards of review that is whether the defendant proved self defense by a preponderance of the evidence or whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense In this case we need not and do not decide the issue of who has the burden of proving or disproving self defense because under either standard the evidence sufficiently established that the defendant did not act in self defense See Pizzalato 93 1415 at p 4 644 So at 714 2d The evidence reflects conflicting versions of the incident which occurred between Nordgren and the defendant Nordgren claimed that after he pushed the defendant against his trailer he Nordgren walked to his truck While standing by his truck with Richard Nordgren heard the defendant scream You m f As Nordgren turned toward the defendant he was shot by the defendant According to Nordgren he did not hit the defendant he did not say Ikill you ll In State v Freeman 427 So 1161 1162 1163 La 1983 the Louisiana Supreme 2d Court without resolving the issue suggested that the defendant in a nonhomicide case may have the burden of proving self defense by a preponderance of the evidence See Barnes 590 So 2d at 1300 1301 7 to the defendant and he did not walk to his truck to get a gun The defendant on the other hand claimed that he shot Nordgren in self defense because after Nordgren had choked the defendant and told him he was going to kill him Nordgren walked to his truck According to the defendant he knew Nordgren carried a gun in his truck The defendant went inside to retrieve a rifle and as he opened the door to go back outside the defendant saw Nordgren walking back toward him When asked at trial if he could see that Nordgren had a gun the defendant responded No I could not I had to assume he had a gun because I was scared The defendant maintained that while he shot Nordgren in self defense he also shot Nordgren accidentally since his intention was only to fire a warning shot in Nordgren direction s In finding the defendant guilty of aggravated battery it is clear the jury accepted Nordgren sversion of the events and rejected the claim of self defense concluding that the scenario of self defense as suggested by the defendant was not reasonable Given the manner in which the defendant shot Nordgren either from a distance while Nordgren was standing by his truck or at a closer range while Nordgren was walking back toward the defendant strailer the jury could have concluded that the force used by the defendant against Nordgren was neither reasonable nor necessary to prevent an attack particularly since Nordgren was unarmed See State v Wilson 613 So 234 239 La App l Cir 1992 writ 2d denied 93 0533 La 3635 So 238 94 25 2d Even assuming that Nordgren was initially the aggressor it was unreasonable for the defendant to respond with deadly force See State v Taylor 972261 p 6 La App l Cir 9 721 So 929 932 Once Nordgren had 98 25 2d walked away and the defendant went inside and grabbed his gun the defendant abandoned the role ofdefender and took on the role of aggressor and as such was not entitled to claim self defense See La R 14 State v Tran 98 2812 p S 21 3 21 La App 1 Cir 11 743 So 1275 1291 writ denied 993380 La 99 5 2d 00 26 5 762 So 1101 Even assuming as true that Nordgren stated I going 2d m to kill you there is nothing in the facts to suggest the defendant was in any real danger of being killed A juror could have reasonably concluded that Nordgren simply made such a statement out of anger following the clash between him and the defendant or if that portion of Nordgren version is to be believed following s the defendant saction in striking Nordgren without provocation The trier of fact is free to accept or reject in whole or in part the testimony of any witness Taylor 972261 at p 5 721 So at 932 We are constitutionally 2d precluded from acting as a thirteenth juror in assessing what weight to give evidence in criminal cases State v Mitchell 99 3342 p 8 La 10 772 00 17 2d So 78 83 The fact that the record contains evidence which conflicts with the testimony accepted by a trier of fact does not render the evidence accepted by the trier of fact insufficient State v Quinn 479 So 592 596 La App 1 Cir 2d 51 1985 An appellate court will not reweigh the evidence to overturn a factfinder s determination of guilt Taylor 97 2261 at p 6 721 So at 932 2d A determination of the weight of the evidence is a question of fact This court has no appellate jurisdiction to review questions of fact in criminal cases La Const art V B 10 See Spears 504 So at 978 2d After a thorough review of the record we find that the evidence supports the s jury verdict We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence that in shooting Nordgren who was unarmed and posed no immediate threat to the defendant the defendant did not shoot Nordgren in self defense and as such was guilty of aggravated battery See State v Calloway 2007 2306 pp 0 1 2 La 1 1 So 417 418 per curiam 09 21 3d This assignment of error is without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER 2 In his second assignment of error the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request to question Nordgren regarding a pending charge against him Specifically the defendant contends that the pending charge against Nordgren was relevant to his motivation for testifying Prior to voir dire the defense counsel informed the trial court that he filed a motion to reveal the deal concerning Nordgren in reference to charges pending against him The defense counsel noted he had been told by the State that no deal had been made and asked the State to confirm its assertion for the record The prosecutor first noted defense counsel had openfile discovery He then informed the trial court that no deal had been made with Nordgren for him to testify According to the prosecutor Nordgren pending charge was for aggravated incest s Following selection of the jury but prior to opening statements the prosecutor asked for a ruling on a motion in limine to prevent the defense from referring during trial to Nordgren pending charge for which he had not been s convicted In finding no evidence of any deal having been made with Nordgren and no evidence of any sentence lenient or otherwise the trial court ruled that evidence of an arrest and charge is not admissible The trial court cautioned the State however to make an immediate revelation of any such deal of which the trial court was not aware that had been made or offered or had been discussed in any way with Nordgren since such information would constitute Brady material To this ruling the prosecutor stated Your Honor for the record I have spoken to Ms Leigh Ann Wall and to Scott Gardner prosecutors They have both indicated to me that no deal or no promises have ever been made to Gary Nordgren and certainly since I been on this case I haven ve tmade any promises or anything like that to Gary Nordgren or his counsel 10 Generally only offenses for which the witness has been convicted are admissible upon the issue of his credibility and no inquiry is permitted into matters for which there has only been an arrest the issuance of an arrest warrant an indictment a prosecution or an acquittal La C art 609 However E B 1 extrinsic evidence to show a witness bias interest corruption or defect of s capacity is admissible to attack the credibility of the witness La C art E 1 D 607 The defendant sright to confront and cross examine witnesses found in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is a fundamental right and applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Pointer v Texas 380 S U 400 403 85 S 1065 1068 13 L923 1965 In addition this right Ct 2d Ed to confrontation is found in the Louisiana Constitution See La Const art I 16 In order to cross examine a witness effectively a defendant must be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate any bias or self interest which is attached to a witness s testimony Davis v Alaska 415 U 308 318 94 S 1105 1111 39 L S Ct 2d Ed 347 1974 See State v Rankin 465 So 679 681 La 1985 2d A crossexaminer is allowed wide latitude in exploring any facts that might support an inference of bias The possibility that the prosecution may have leverage over a witness due to that witness pending criminal charges is s recognized as a valid area of cross examination Rankin 465 So at 681 To 2d the extent exposure of a witness motivation is a proper and important function of s the constitutionally protected right of cross examination a witness hope or s knowledge that he will receive leniency from the State is highly relevant to establish his bias or interest State v Vale 95 1230 p 4 La 1 666 So 96 26 2d 1070 1072 per curiam A witness bias or interest may arise from arrests or s pending criminal charges or the prospect of prosecution even when he has made no agreements with the State regarding his conduct Id See State v Nash 475 11 2d So 752 754 756 La 1985 State v Brady 381 So 819 822 La 1980 2d In the instant matter arguably the trial court should have allowed defense counsel to cross examine Nordgren about his pending charge However Sixth Amendment confrontation errors are subject to harmless error analysis The correct inquiry is whether the reviewing court assuming that the damaging potential of the cross examination were fully realized is nonetheless convinced that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt Delaware v Van Arsdall 475 U 673 684 106 S 1431 1438 89 L 674 1986 Factors to be S Ct 2d Ed considered by the reviewing court include the importance of the witness s testimony in the prosecution case whether the testimony was cumulative the s presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points the extent of cross examination otherwise permitted and the overall strength of the prosecution scase Van Arsdall 475 U at 684 S 106 S at 1438 See State v Burbank 20021407 p 3 La 4 872 Ct 04 23 2d So 1049 1051 per curiam Even assuming such error by the trial court in this case we would find such error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt See La C art 921 P Cr The prosecutor informed the trial court that neither he nor any other prosecutor that he had spoken to made any promise or offered any deal to Nordgren regarding his pending charge Further Nordgren pending charge of aggravated incest was s completely unrelated to the charge of attempted second degree murder in the instant matter Even had defense counsel been allowed to cross examine Nordgren regarding his pending charge we do not see how such testimony would have affected the guilty verdict given the overwhelming evidence of guilt The defendant admitted that he shot Nordgren without knowing whether or not 2 At the pretrial hearing on this issue the prosecutor informed the trial court that the allegation against Nordgren for aggravated incest occurred after the shooting in the instant matter 12 Nordgren possessed a weapon The evidence established that Nordgren was not armed when the defendant shot him and that no gun was found in Nordgren truck s Accordingly we conclude that while the trial court arguably erred in denying defense counsel the opportunity to cross examine Nordgren about his pending charge the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial would surely have been unattributable to any such error See Sullivan v Louisiana 508 U 275 279 S 113 S 2078 2081 124 L 182 1993 Ct 2d Ed This assignment of error is without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER 3 In his third assignment of error the defendant argues that his sentence is excessive Specifically the defendant contends that he received the maximum sentence yet he is not the worst offender and this is not the worst offense The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of excessive punishment Although a sentence falls within statutory limits it may be excessive Sepulvado 367 So 762 767 La 1979 2d A sentence is State v 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 done to society it shocks the sense of justice State v Andrews 94 0842 pp 89 La App 1 Cir 5 95 655 So 448 454 2d 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 State v Holts 525 So 1241 2d 1245 La App I Cir 1988 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 La C art 894 need not be recited the record must P Cr 1 13 reflect the trial court adequately considered the criteria State v Brown 2002 2231 p 4 La App l Cir 5 849 So 566 569 03 9 2d The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of La C P Cr art 894 not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions 1 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 La C art P Cr 1 894 State v Lanclos 419 So 475 478 La 1982 The trial judge should 2d review the defendant personal history his prior criminal record the seriousness s 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 1049 1051 1052 La 1981 2d In the instant matter the trial court imposed the maximum sentence of ten years at hard labor See La R 14 This court has stated that maximum S 34 sentences permitted under statute may be imposed only for the most serious offenses and the worst offenders or when the offender poses an unusual risk to the public safety due to his past conduct of repeated criminality State v Hilton 99 1239 p 16 La App 0 Cir 3 764 So 1027 1037 writ denied 2000 00 31 2d 0958 La 3 786 So 113 The defendant contends that while this may 01 9 2d have been one of the worst offenses he is clearly not one of the worst offenders At sentencing the trial court stated in pertinent part The Court has also been provided with a presentence investigation which outlines Mr Johnson past insofar as his s involvement with the criminal justice system is concerned as well as his recollection as to how this incident took place and input from Mr Nordgren as the victim of the crime The Court is not in a position today to try this case that matter has occurred And the jury having ample evidence upon which to base a conviction chose to convict for aggravated battery rather than for attempted second degree murder As the Court reviewed the presentence investigation I couldn t help but be sad The reason that I was sad is because some things in 14 life are tremendously tremendously predictable April 6 1989 Tangipahoa Parish Louisiana driving while intoxicated failure to maintain control Plead guilty to DWI 30 years sic parish jail suspended one year probation The second count was dismissed 1992 5 1 second degree battery disturbing the peace resisting arrest by flight lewd conduct All charges refused 1996 17 5 St Tammany Parish driving while intoxicated improper equipment possession of marijuana possession of paraphernalia 96 17 12 Plead guilty to DWI two years probation nolle prosed sic remaining charges 1999 3 5 possession marijuana Jefferson County Texas less than five pounds more than four ounces Deferred adjudication of guilt three years probation on August 7 2000 April 21 2000 St Tammany Sheriffs Office Second degree battery refused no Bill filed turned over to Texas 2002 19 3 St Tammany driving while intoxicated speeding reckless operation 2003 16 10 plead guilty to DWI one Perhaps that someone s standing between the action and the consequences Six months parish jail suspended two years probation Revoked 11 Other counts nolle prosed sic 2006 3 September 8 2003 St Tammany Sheriffs Office Simple Nolle battery resisting arrest outstanding non support warrant prosed sic referred to family court 2004 12 9 St Tammany Parish Driving while intoxicated driving under suspension careless operation speeding 2006 1 8 plead guilty to DWI two Two three Six months parish jail suspended two years probation whatever 2005 9the instant charge s What so sad about that Repeated opportunities to learn from our past mistakes totally totally ignored One of the things that sometimes frustrates me in this job is that I deal with people who t aren smart enough to do any better They do the best they can with the cards they were dealt Mr Johnson is an honor sic graduate s from St Paul maintained the Dean list at times while he was at s s Southeastern As my grandpa would say Had the world by the tail And was given break after break after break after break And now 15 we stand here for predictable consequences Some things are real easy to predict and this path started April 6 1989 We haven t deviated from that path till this day not till this day 1 894 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth the sentencing guidelines that are to guide the Court The question is whether or not there an undue risk that during s the period of suspended sentence or probation the defendant would commit another crime That reads like an index of how to commit another crime Whether or not the defendant is in need of correctional treatment or custodial environment Probation sure hasn worked t Whether or not a lesser sentence would depreciate sic the seriousness of the defendant crime Today I hear somehow the s victim is not worthy therefore it lessens the seriousness of the crime God didn tcreate a human being who is not equally worthy Not a one Some of us have acted better than others some of us have acted worse than others The thing that is totally consistent is that we all have to answer for our own actions Mr Nordgren if he got things s to answer for will answer for them But you answering for re shooting that man today But for the grace of God he be dead I d ve seen the injuries He going to carry those around the rest of his life s s He never going to use that arm properly Right now you can use t your arms because they handcuffed to your waist He never use re ll that one because it in essence handcuffed to his waist s s That something to think about every day The Court finds that any sentence less than that which it going s to impose would depreciate sic the seriousness of the offense Considering the trial court careful thorough review of the circumstances s the presentence investigation report and the nature of the crime we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court The trial court reasons and the presentence s investigation report provided ample justification for the imposition of the maximum sentence allowed by law With his chronic criminal behavior that spans over fifteen years and what appears to be a complete disregard for the law we find the defendant to be the worst type of offender See State v Mickey 604 So 2d 675 679 La App l Cir 1992 writ denied 610 So 795 La 1993 We find 2d as well shooting an unarmed man to be the worst type ofoffense in the category of aggravated battery given that such reckless behavior could have easily resulted in 16 the victim death As noted by the trial court in its reasons for sentencing But s for the grace of God he be dead Moreover the defendant poses an unusual d risk to the public safety due to his past conduct of repeated criminality See Hilton 991239 at p 16 764 So at 1037 Accordingly the sentence imposed is 2d not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense and therefore is not unconstitutionally excessive This assignment of error is without merit CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the defendant conviction and sentence are s affirmed CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 17
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.
