State Of Louisiana VS Christopher Howard Guerin
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 KA 0694 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS CHRISTOPHER HOWARD GUERIN Judgment Rendered OCT 2 0 2010 On Appeal from the ThirtySecond Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Terrebonne State of Louisiana Docket No 504 642 Honorable Timothy C Ellender Judge Presiding Joseph L Waltz Jr District Attorney BY Ellen Daigle Doskey Assistant District Attorney Counsel for Appellee State of Louisiana Houma Louisiana Prentice L White Counsel for DefendantAppellant Baton Rouge Louisiana Christopher Howard Guerin BEFORE WHIPPLE McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ McCLENDON J The defendant Christopher Howard Guerin was charged by bill of information with two counts of armed robbery by use of a firearm in violation of LSAR 14 and 14 He initially entered a plea of not guilty however S 64 3 64 he changed the plea to guilty on both counts The court sentenced the defendant to 20 years at hard labor on each count of armed robbery to run concurrently with an additional fiveyear sentence on each count in accordance with LSAR 14 to run consecutively with each other The defendant S 64 3A s sentences were ordered served without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence The defendant appeals asserting in one assignment of error that the court abused its discretion by imposing upon him excessive sentences FACTS On February 5 2008 the defendant and an accomplice Willie O Neal Cousin robbed two victims with a Colt 38 caliber revolver The first armed robbery occurred in a Wal Mart parking lot where the defendant and Cousin approached a woman with her minor child brandished a weapon and demanded her purse A few minutes later they approached a man at a car wash down the street pointed the gun at him and robbed him EXCESSIVE SENTENCE In his sole assignment of error the defendant alleges that his sentences are excessive in light of his character and the circumstances surrounding his commission of the crimes 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 s is subject to appellate review State v Sepulvado 367 So 762 767 La 2d 1979 State v Lanieu 981260 p 12 La App 1 Cir 4 734 So 89 99 1 2d 97 writ denied 991259 La 10 750 So 962 99 8 2d A sentence is constitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the 2 offense or is nothing more than a purposeless imposition of pain and suffering See State v Dorthey 623 So 1276 1280 La 1993 A sentence is grossly 2d 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 Hogan 480 2d So 288 291 La 1985 A trial court is given wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within statutory limits and the sentence imposed by it should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion State v Guzman 991528 991753 p 15 La 5 769 So 1158 1167 00 16 2d The Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth items that must be considered by the trial court before imposing sentence LSA C art 894 P Cr 1 The trial court need not cite the entire checklist of Article 894 but the record 1 must reflect that it adequately considered the guidelines State v Herrin 562 2d So 1 11 La App 1 Cir writ denied 565 So 942 La 1990 In light of 2d the criteria expressed by Article 894 a review for individual excessiveness 1 should consider the circumstances of the crime and the trial court stated s reasons and factual basis for its sentencing decision State v Watkins 532 2d So 1182 1186 La App 1 Cir 1988 Remand for full compliance with Article 1 894 is unnecessary when a sufficient factual basis for the sentence is shown State v Lanclos 419 So 475 478 La 1982 2d Although the defendant faced the potential of 99 years imprisonment on each count the sentences received are actually at the lower end of the spectrum The minimum sentence was 15 years imprisonment a minimum of ten years for armed robbery plus an additional consecutive five years for use of a firearm and the defendant was sentenced to a total of 30 years imprisonment LSAR S 646 14 36 64 14 Absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion we will not set aside a sentence as excessive Guzman 99 1528 99 1753 at p 15 769 So at 1167 2d The defendant presented several witnesses who described him as a good man who had never been in trouble before The defendant explained his behavior in committing the two armed robberies as a result of his extreme 3 intoxication The court in sentencing the defendant stated this is tough for me to give this to two young men like this but you leave me no choice man At the hearing on the motion to reconsider sentence the court said I don understand t understand it I don understand what got into y I don t all t Even if it was just one but you did one here and boom you did another one You have got to be drugged or what Well gentlemen you have shamed your families shame shame shame Your mamas and daddy are good solid citizens and I feel terribly terribly sorry for them but under the circumstances with the sentencing ranging from 10 to 99 years and we have just given you 20 concurrent on the armed robberies and 5 and 5 on the offenses the Court reluctantly and sadly denies your request for reconsideration It is clear from the record that the court carefully considered the facts of the case and the defendant history in imposing sentence s sentences to fit the defendant crimes s The court tailored the The sentences imposed are not excessive Thus this assignment of error lacks merit REVIEW FOR ERROR The defendant asks that this court examine the record for error under LSA C art 920 This court routinely reviews the record for such errors P Cr 2 Under Article 920 we are limited in our review to errors discoverable by a 2 mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the evidence After a careful review of the record in these proceedings we have found no reversible errors See State v Price 2005 2514 pp 1822 La App 1 Cir 12 952 So 112 123 25 en banc writ denied 2007 0130 La 06 28 2d 08 22 2 976 So 1277 2d CONCLUSION Having found no merit in the defendant assignment of error the s convictions and sentences are affirmed CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED M
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.
