State Of Louisiana VS Donald E. Bailey
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIG11 FOR PUBLICATION AfiED STAT OF LO ISIANA URT F PEA CC C AX L T S IZCLIT FI C NO 2 KA 897 STATE F I iA SIA n C VERSUS DONALD E BAILEY 7udgmentRendered IUN O 7 ZO13 On A from the aeal 19th 3udicial Distri Co t art In and fe rthe Parisri of East Batoz Rouge Stat of Loui saana Trial Court 11 o 09 95 0 Honarable IZi xard James D re III f l lZadge residing Caldwell Atty Uer Colin Clark Asst Atty Gen Baton Rouge A Attorneys for laintifiF Appellee Frederick Kroenke Attorney for Defendant Appellant Baton Donald E Bailey Rouge BEFORE LA StaYe of Louisiana ID I WHIPPLE C McCLENDO A HIUGINBO JJ Ji HAM HIGGINBOTHAM J Defendant Donald E Bailey was charged by grand jury indictment with public bribery a violation of La R 14 i count one conupt influencing a S 1 violation of La R 14 cd twp ar ynalfeasance in office a violation of S 120 unt d La R 14 count three I S 134 efendant initially pled not guilty to all counts but he later withdrew those pleas and pled nolo cantendere to counts one and two The trial court sentenced defendant to three years ofimprisonment at hard labor for his conviction on count one For his conviction on count two the trial court sentenced defendant to five years of imprisonment at hard labor consecutive to the term on count one but that sentence was suspanded and defendant was placed on five years of probation with special conditions and ordered to pay a fine of 00 000 1 Defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentences but the trial court denied that motion He now appeals raising o assignment of error challenging ie the constitutionality of his For the following reasons we affirm sentences s defendant convictions and sentences FACTS Because defendant pled nolo contendere the facts of his offenses were not developed at triaL The following acts are adapted from the police report and presentence investigation PSI repc boith of which were introduced into the rt record and considered by the trial judge prior tQ defendant sentencing hearing s According to the police report defendant was a corporal an the Baton Rouge City Police Department where he served as the coordinator of the Targeted Violent Offender Program As coordinator defendant was responsible for tracking repeat offenders and ensuring that probation agents and assistant district attorneys were aware when those repeat offenders were arrested on new charges The circumstances leading to defendant sarrest and conviction began when defendant 1 The state agreed to nolle pros the charge on count three 2 attempted to extort money from Melvin Vern and Marcus Roach who were ll affiliated with the subject of a faderal investigation regarding Trill Entertainment Vernell and Roach were also awaiting rial in ihe shooting of a local rapper Bruce Beelow Moore Defendant met with an incl named Urzgor Lollis and instructed him vidual to inform Vernell and Roach that he woa ldkeep the feds off of them in exchange for 30 in cash Defendant also showed Lollis a warrant far his arrest for 00 000 the offense of failure to retum leased movables implying that Lollis would be arrested on that warrant if he did not arrange the transactioxi with Vemell and Roach Vernell and Roach did not give defendant the money and Lollis was subsequently arrested on the warrant defendant had shown him Later the charge against Lollis was dismissed and he was released from jaiL Subsequently Lollis was arrested ori a drug violation and a parole hold was placed on him Investigating officers made arrangements for Lollis to call defendant from a recarded inmate telephone Lollis told defendant that he needed assistance getting out of jail Defendant niade arrangements for Lollis to be transported from East Baton Rouge EBR parish prison to Baton Rouge Police Department BRI headquarters to meet with him on Se 1S 2009 D tember Lollis told investigators that defendan2 informed him that it would cost him 00 000 12 for the charge to be dismissed and the parole hold lifted Lollis also told investigators that defendant had instructed Lollis upon his release to call him from a home phone and to meet him with the money in the parking lot of Conn s department store on Airline Highway On September 16 2009 defendant approached District Attorney Hillar Moore and advised him that Lollis was an informant who could help with the Trill Entertainment investigation and he requested that the charges against Lollis be 3 dismissed On Sept 2 2 the date of his rLollis was wired with mber s 09 lease an audio and video devzce and given b1 cash as a down payment to 00 40U defendant for his assistanc 11is I met de in the onn parking lot and endant s provided him i the 1in ash L at cPay efendar vas found to ath 400A1ti rt a4 Y be in possession f tl same t unrenc e 00 40 ir rat k31TPD ie dquarters Defendant was arresteci and ch witih public ri co influencing and arg bery rupt malfeasance in office ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In his sole assigrunent of error defendant requests review of his sentences far constitutional excessiveness Specifically defendant contends that the trial court inadequately considered his lack of prior criminal history before imposing the sentences in this case Article I Section 20 of the Lc Constitutiqn prohibits the imposition uisiana of excessive punishment Alth amay be within statutory limits it augh entence may amount to a violation of a defendant acanstitutional right again excessiva t punishment and is subject to appel review State v Sepulvado 367 So 762 ata 2d 767 La 1979 A sentence is constitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity ofxhe offense ar is nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering See State v Dorthey 623 So 2d 1276 1280 La 1993 A sentence is grossly disproportionate if when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the hann done to society it shocks the sense of justice State v Hogan 4 So 2 291 La 1985 A trial court is 0 2d given wide discretion in the imposition of sentences vvithin sfa Iim and the tutory cs 2 District Attorney Moore assisted the pelice in their investigativn of defendant providing e by mails sent by deiendanx to his office and by detailing conversations defendant had initiated with him about L He and an assistant district attomey reviewed Lollis case file and found that ollis s the pending charges against Lollis lacked enough evidence to prosecute so those charges were dismissed and Lollis parole hold was lifred s 4 sentence imposed by it should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion State v Lobato 603 So 739 75 i 2d 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 1 894 The trial court need not recite the entire checklist of Article 894 but the 1 record must reflect that it adequately considered the guidelines State v Herrin 562 So 1 11 La App lst Cir writ denied 565 So 942 La 1990 In light 2d 2d of the criteria expressed by Article 894 a review far individual excessiveness 1 should consider the circumstances of the crime and the trial court stated reasons s and factual basis for its sentencing decision State v Watkins 532 Sa2d ll82 ll86 La App 1st Cir 1988 Remand for full compliance with Article 894 is 1 unnecessary when a sufficient factual basis for the sentence is shown State v Lanclos 419 So 475 478 La 1982 2d For his conviction on count one defendant was eligible to receive a fine of up to 1ar a sentence of imprisonment with or without hard labor for not 00 000 more than five years or both See La R 1 prior to 2010 amendment S 118 C His sentence for count one was three years of imprisonment at hard labor For his conviction on count two defendant was eligible to be imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than ten years or fined up to 10 or both See La 00 000 S 120 R 14 prior to 2010 mendment B s Defendant sentence on count two was ordered to be consecutive to his sentence on count one and he received a suspended sentence of five years of imprisonment at hard labor was placed on five years probation and was ordered to pay a fine 00 000 1 Prior to sentencing defendant the trial court noted review of the PSI report and the sentencing guidelines of La Code Crim P art 894 Additionally the 1 trial court noted as aggravating factors defendant receipt of something ofvalue in s association with the commission of these offenses and defendant use of his s 5 position or status to facilitate the commission of the offenses The trial court noted as a mitigating factor defendant lack of priar criminal activity In addition to the s Article 894 factors the trial court highlighted the serious nature of defendant 1 s offenses and opined that these types of offenses cause society to lose trust in government and the justice system Considering the trial court stated reasons and the record as a whole we s cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant for public bribery and corrupt influencing The trial judge adequately considered the Article 894 factors including the mitigating factor that defendant lacked any prior 1 criminal history and carefully crafted appropriate sentences for defendanYs offenses CONCLUSION Finding no merit in the sole assignment of error we affirm defendant s convictions and sentences CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED 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.
