State Of Louisiana VS Christopher Lee Risner
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE cJF LOIDISYANA COUE2T L F APP FIRST CIRCflIT N0 2012 K 1 1 93 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS CHRISTOPHER LEE RISNER udgment rendered June 7 2013 Appealed from the zZn UdlCidl District COUrt in and for the Parish of Washington Louisiana Trial Court No il CR8 115163 Honorable Will Crain udge HON WALTER REED A7TORNEYS FOR STATE OF LOUISIANA DISTRICT ATTORNEY FRANKLINTON LA KATHRYNLANDRY SPECIAL APPEALS COUNSEL BATON ROUGE LA LIEU T VO CLARK ATTORNEY FOR AppELLANT DEFENDANT CHRISfOPHER RISNER LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT MANDEVILLE LA BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD 77 PETTIGREW Defendant Christopher Lee Risr was charge by bill of information with er distribution of a schedule II controll dangeraus substance methamphetamine a d violation of La R 40 count one and with distribution of an imitation or S 967 1 A counterfeit controlled dangerous substance counterfeit MDMA a violation of La R S A 1 971 40 count two Defendant pled not guilty and after a jury trial was found guilty as charged on both counts The trial court denied defendant smotions for new trial and postverdict judgment of acquittal On count one the trial court sentenced defendant to ten years imprisonment at hard labor with the first two years to be served without the benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence On count two the trial court sentenced defendant to five years imprisonment at hard labor to run concurrently with the sentence on count one Defendant moved for reconsideration of sentence but the trial court denied that motion Defendant now appeals alleging two assignments of error For the following reasons we affirm defendanYs convictions on counts one and two and his sentence on count two We vacate his sentence on count one and remand for resentencing FACTS Officers Craig James and ames Folks both of the Franklinton Police Department used a confidential informant to conduct controfled narcotics purchases from defendant on January 18 2011 and January 28 2011 Or January 18 2011 the confidential informant successfully purchased 0 grams of inethamphetamine from defendant On 15 January 28 2011 the confidertial infocmant attempted to purchase MDMA commonly known as ecstasy from defendant but subsequent chemical testing revealed that defendant actually sold the confidential informant caffeine pills On both occasions the confidential informant recorded the transactions via concealed audio and video devices After a jury trial defendant was found guilty as charged on both counts See discussion of defendanYs plea in Review for Error section below 2 W REVI FOR ERROR Initially we note th our review for error s pursuant to La Code Crim P art t 920 which provides that the only matters to be c on appeal are errors nsidered designated in the assignments f rror d rrar hat is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings an pro an without inspection of the evidence gs n ed La Code Crim P art 920 2 Prior to trial the district court clerk read to the jury the bill of information and indicated that defendant was arraigned and entereq a plea of not guilty on both counts However the trial court minutes fail tc reflect that defendant was arraigned or that he entered a plea to the charges in the bil of information Under La Code Crim P art A 551 the arraignment and the defendant splea shall be entered in the minutes of the court and shall constitute a part of the record Still a failure to arraign the defendant or the fact that he did not plead is waived if the defendant enters upon the trial without objecting thereto and it shall be considered as if he had pleaded not guilty La Code Crim P art 555 In the instant case we find it like9y that the absence of the minute entry reflecting defendant arraignment and pleading es a mere clerical error However even s if defendant was not arraigned and dfd not plead t the charges against him these deficiencies were waived when defendant proceeded ko trial without objection In that event it would have been considered as if defendant had pieaded not guilty Therefore this error does not require carrectior We also note a sentencing error which requires that we vacate defendant s sentence on count one and remand for resentencing for that offense For his conviction on count one distribution of inethamphetamine defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment at hard labor with the first two years of that sentence to be served without the benefit of parole probatfon or suspension of sentence However the sentencing range for this conviction is imprisonment at hard labor for not less than two years nor more than thirty years and payment of a fine up to 50 La R 00 000 S 1 B 967 40 The sentencing provision does not restrict the benefits of parole 3 probation or suspension of sertence statutory penalty provided for thos Therefor the tria court deviated from the ffense Because of the sentencing discretion involved we vacate th senten n counk pne 1d rer the matter to the trial court E and for resentencing in accordar wit law ce See State v Hayne 2004 La 1893 04 10 12 889 So 224 per curiam 2d EXCESSIVE SENTENCE In his two assignments of error defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to reconsider sentence and in imposing constitutionally excessive sentences Specifically defendant argues that his sentences are excessive because of the minimal amount of drugs he was convicted of selling Because we have already vacated defendant ssentence on count or we discuss these assignments of error with e respect to the sentence on count two only Article I Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution proi the imposition of ibits excessive punishment Although a sentenee may be within statutory limits it may violate a defendant sconstitutional right against excessiv punishment and is subject to appellate review State v Sepulvado 367 So 762 767 La 1979 A sentence is 2d constitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense or is nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering See State v Dorthey 623 2d So 1276 1280 La 1993 A sentence is grossly disproportionate if when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the harm done to society it shocks the sense f justice State v Hogan 480 So 288 291 2d 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 ebuse of discretion 5tate v Lobato 603 So 739 7 2d 51 La 1992 The Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth items that must be considered by the trial court before imposing sentence La Code Crim P art 894 1 The trial court need not recite the entire checklist of Article 894 but the record must 1 reflect that it adequately considered the guidelines State v Herrin 562 So 1 11 2d 4 La App 1 Cir writ denied 565 2d So 942 La 1990 In light of the criteria expressed by Article 894 a review for individual excessiveness should consider the 1 circumstances of the crime and the trial court stated reasons and factual basis for its s sentencing decision State v Waxkins 532 S il 1186 La App i Cir 1988 2q tic4e 1 Remand for full compliance with A 9 unnecessary v a sufficient factual hen basis for the sentence is shown State v Lar 14 So 475 478 La 1982 clos 2d For his conviction on count two defendant was eligible to receive a sentence of imprisonment with or without hard labor of not more than five years and a fine up to 00 000 5 La R 40 Defendant was sentenced to five imprisonment S 971 C 1 years at hard labor on this count Therefore he received the maximum term of imprisonment for this offense Maximum sentences 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 Miller 96 p 4 App 1 Cir 2040 La 97 7 11 703 So 698 701 writ denied 98 La 5 719 So 459 In 2d 0039 98 15 2d stating his reasons for defendant sentences the trial judge noted that defendant had s been convicted of felonies on at ieast kvvo prior oce H further stated that s9ons defendant was in need of correctionai treakme tin a custodial environment and that defendant posed a risk of repeated crminalit f he were not incarcerated FinaVly the trial judge stated that he found no mitigating factors to be appiicable in the instant case The trial judge cleariy considered defendant past conduct of repeated s criminality and concluded that any sentence less than tlie maximum for this offense would not be appropriate in the instant case Considering the trial judge stated s reasons and the record as a whole we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in imposing the maxirnum sentence on count two This assignment of error is without merik with respect to count two Z However the triai judge did not detail the crimes for which defendant had been previously convicted 5 DECItEE For the foregoing reasons we affirm dconvictions n counts one and s aant f two and his sentence on cour tw e vacate defendant t ssentence on count one and remand for resentencing on that c anly un CONVICTIONS ON COUNTS ONE fVD T1RI0 4FFIRNiED SENTENCE ON COUNT TWO AFFIRMED SENTENCE ON OUNT ONE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING 6
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.
