State Of Louisiana VS Daquine Banks
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCLTI T I NLJMBER 2012 KA 1556 I STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DAQUINE BANKS l J Judgment Rendered AP 3 0 2013 jJu v Appealed from the 32 Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Terrebonne Louisiana Trial Court Nuznber 586 s65 Honorable George J Larke Jr Judge Joseph L Waitz 7r District Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Plaintiff i and Matthew Hagen Ellen Daigle Doskey Asst District Attorneys Houma LA Gwendolyn K Brown Louisiana Appellate Project Baton Rouge LA Attorney far Appellant Defendant Daquine Banks BEFORE PARRO WELCH AND KLINE JJ Hon William F Kline Jr retired is serving as iudge ad hoc by special appointment of the Louisiana I State of Louisiana Supreme Court WELCH J The defendant Daquine Banks was charged by bill of information with two counts of armed robbery in violation of La R 14 He pled not guilty and after S 64 trial by jury was convicted as charged The defendant received two concurrent sentences of twenty years at hard labor without benefit of parole The defendant five filed a motion to reconsider sentence After a hearing the trial court denied the motion The defendant has appealed the instant sentences alleging that the trial court erred in imposing excessive sentences and in denying the motion to reconsider sentence We affirm the convictions and sentences FACTS Early on the morning of September 14 2010 the defendant and an unidentified accomplice committed two armed robberies in Houma Louisiana The first victim Arthur Normand was walking to work shortly after 6 a when 00 m a I I maroon SLJV later identified as a Mitsubishi Montero Sport approached and the passenger twice requested a cigarette When Mr Normand refused the two occupants e the vehicle and confronted him ted ordered Mr Normand to strip but he refused The driver had a gun They They took Mr Normand wallet s which contained fifteen dollars cell phone and CD player They also took his clothing from a previous job at McDonald sconsisting of a hat name tag uniform pants and two shirts as well as an ice chest containing some Dr Pepper cans A short time later the second victizn old year nine sixty Marvin Porche was taking his morning walk when a SUV approached reddish maroonish him from behind One perpetrator armed with a gun confronted him screaming Give it up Give it up Mr Porche offered his pocket knife The second perpetrator tackled Mr Porche from the side and together they pulled off his pants leaving him naked from the waist down Laughing they returned to the SUV and 2 fled Mr Porche recovered his pocket knife at the scene Two days later Mr Porche found his pants lying on the ground about two blocks from the scene ofthe robbery Less than two hours after the robbery of Mr Porche the defendant was spotted driving the suspect vehicle After a low chase the defendant wrecked the speed vehicle in a trailer park and fled on foot but he was soon apprehended After he was arrested a pat search yielded Mr Normand cell phone and a five dollar bill down s A search of the Mitsubishi SiJV revealed Mr Normand McDonald hat name tag ss uniform pants and two shirts and some Dr Pepper cans A gun was never located Although neither victim could positively identify the defendant he confessed to the first robbery although he denied having a gun He explained that he needed gas money The defendant denied the second robbery and he refused to identify his accomplice ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing excessive sentences and in denying the motion to reconsider sentence Specifically the defendant complains that the trial court failed to give appropriate consideration to his youth age sixteen at the time of the offenses and lack of a prior criminal record Noting that the statutory minimum sentence for armed robbery is ten years he concludes minimum sentences would be more appropriate under the circumstances The Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth items to be considered by the trial court before imposing sentence The trial court need not recite the entire checklist of Article 894 but the record must reflect that it adequately considered the guidelines 1 State v Herrin 562 So 1 ll App 1 Cir writ denied 565 So 942 La 2d La 2d 1990 In light of the criteria eby Article 894 a review for individual pressed 1 excessiveness should consider the circumstances of the crime and the trial court s stated reasons and factual basis for its sentencing decision 2d So 1182 ll86 La App l Cir 1988 3 State v Watkins 532 Although a sentence falls within statutory limits it may be excessive State v Sepulvado 367 So 762 767 La 1979 H the trial court has great 2d wever discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory limits and such a sentence will not be set aside as excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion State v Latiolais 563 So 469 473 La App 1 Cir 1990 2d At the sentencing hearing the triai cowrt initially observed that it had not received any type of statements from the defendant family members The court s then reviewed the facts of the offenses and the defendant juvenile record which the s court noted was several pages in length and included charges for being uncontrollable curfew problems simple battery disturbing the peace by abusive language resisting an officer simple assault aggravated battery obstruction of justice marijuana possession and probation violation The only mitigating factors noted by the court were the defendant youth and the fact that he did not shoot the s first victim Mr Normand despite being urged to do so by his accomplice Among the many aggravating factors noted by the court were the defendant apparent lack s of remorse and his refusal to cooperate by identifying his accomplice In imposing sentence the trial court found probation was not autharized and that there was an undue risk the defendant would commit further crimes The court concluded the defendant was in need of correctional treatment ar a custodial environment and that lesser sentences would deprecate the seriousness of the defendant crimes s While the defendant complains in his brief that the trial court did not order a presentence investigation report PSI it is well settled that ordering a PSI is discretionary with the trial court State v Wimberly 618 So 908 914 La App 2d l Cir writ denied 624 So 1229 La 1993 2d See La Code Crim P art 1 875A Our review of the sentencing transcript indicates that the trial court adequately complied with the Article 894 guidelines 1 For each of his armed robbery convictions the defendant was exposed to a 4 I minimum sentence of ten years at hard labar and a maximum sentence of ninety nine years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation ar suspension of sentence See La R 14 The defendant received two concurrent sentences of twenty S 64B five years at hard labor without parole Whiie these sentences are certainly harsh for such a youthful offender the sentences wexe clearly within the lower sentencing range far the offense of armed robbery Considering the circumstances of the instant offenses the defendant prior s juvenile record and the reasons for sentencing given by the trial court we conclude that the instant sentences are not excessive We note the particularly egregious conduct by the defendant and his accomplice in the humiliating way they treated Mr Porche the elderly victim of the second robbery Finally this Court is mindful that on appellate review of a sentence the relevant question is whether a trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate State v Thomas 98 La 10 719 Sa2d 49 50 per 1144 98 9 curiam Accordingly the trial court correctly den the defendant motion to ed s reconsider sentence For the foregoing reasons the defendant conviction and sentence are s affirmed CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED 5 I
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.
