State Of Louisiana VS Undre H. Martin
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 KA 0101 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS 5 A 111IDAa 4 100 w1101 Q P DATE OF JUDGMENT SEP 1 0 2010 ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTYFIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 703173 DIV G PARISH OF TANGIPAHOA STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE ERNEST G DRAKE JR JUDGE Angel Monistere Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Patricia Parker State of Louisiana Assistant District Attorneys Scott Perrilloux District Attorney Amite Louisiana Mary E Roper Counsel for DefendantAppellee Baton Rouge Louisiana Undre H Martin BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND KLINE JJ Disposition CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED The Honorable William F Kline Jr is serving pro tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court KUHN J Defendant Undre H Martin was charged by grand jury indictment with second degree murder a violation of La R 14 S 30 1 He pled not guilty Following a trial by jury defendant was convicted as charged Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence He filed a motion for reconsideration of the sentence that the trial court denied Defendant appeals urging in a single assignment of error that the sentence is unconstitutionally excessive We affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS On August 18 2007 Gerald Burton and his son Marcus Warford were riding home when Warford observed what he believed to be a body on the side of the road near Joyton Road in Fluker Louisiana After arriving at their residence Warford decided that he would walk back to determine if what he saw was actually a body Warford found the lifeless body of sixteen year old Raneisha Hodges lying in the ditch with a bloodstain on her back Shortly thereafter Christopher Ard walked by According to Watford Ard became hysterical and began to cry once he realized the body was that of Raneisha Hodges Burton who had also arrived on the scene instructed Warford not to touch anything and to contact the police Warford complied Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff Deputy s Stephen Jenkins was dispatched to investigate the homicide Examination of the body revealed that the victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds to her body A homicide investigation was launched The investigation which initially focused on Ard the victim boyfriend as the shooter eventually revealed that defendant s 2 was responsible for shooting Hodges Defendant subsequently was questioned by the police In an audiotaped statement he denied any involvement in the shooting But in a second recorded statement defendant admitted that he shot Hodges during an argument with Ard Defendant claimed he confronted Hodges who was accompanied by Ard on the morning in question about some money she allegedly stole from him earlier that day Hodges became irate and cursed him out Ard aggressively grabbed on the door of defendant vehicle and threatened to mess s him up Defendant claimed he panicked grabbed his gun and shot out of the window of the vehicle He claimed he did not intend to shoot the victim At the trial Ard denied being with the victim when she was shot He claimed he learned of the victim death when he stopped to see what Warford and s Burton were looking at on the roadside Warford and Burton both testified that Ard became very emotional once he realized that the body lying dead on the side of the road was that of the victim An autopsy later revealed the victim had been shot in her back on the left side her left arm the left side of her chest and the right side of her back ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In his sole assignment of error defendant asserts the sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor is unconstitutionally excessive Thus he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to reconsider the sentence Article I Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits the imposition of excessive punishment Although a sentence may fall within statutory limits it may nevertheless violate a defendant constitutional right against excessive s punishment and is subject to appellate review State v Sepulvado 367 So 762 2d 3 767 La 1979 Generally a sentence is considered excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime or is nothing more than the needless imposition of pain and A suffering sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the harm to society it is so disproportionate as to shock one sense of justice State s v Reed 409 So 266 267 La 1982 A trial judge is given wide discretion in 2d the imposition of sentences within statutory limits and the sentence imposed should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion State v Lanclos 419 So 475 478 La 1982 See also State v Savario 97 2d 2614 p 8 La App 1st Cir 11 721 So 1084 1089 writ denied 98 3032 98 6 2d La 4 741 So 1280 99 1 2d Under La R 14 a person convicted of second degree murder S 30 B 1 shall be punished by life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence Courts are charged with applying a statutorily mandated punishment unless it is unconstitutional State v Dorthey 623 So 1276 1278 La 1993 2d Indeed it is incumbent on the defendant to rebut the presumption that a mandatory sentence is constitutional by clearly and convincingly showing that he is exceptional which in this context means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a victim of the legislature s failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the offender the gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the case State v Johnson 971906 p 8 La 3 709 So 672 676 98 4 2d In this case in support of his argument that the sentence is excessive defendant contends only that at the time of sentencing the victim mother s 4 indicated that she forgave him and was not asking for imposition a maximum sentence The Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth in Article 894 items that must 1 be considered by the trial court before imposing sentence Generally the trial court need not recite the entire checklist of factors but the record must reflect that it adequately considered the guidelines State v Herrin 562 So 1 11 La App 1 st Cir writ denied 565 So 942 La 1990 2d At the sentencing hearing the victim mother testified that defendant s s father and her mother are first cousins defendant for killing her daughter She then stated that she had forgiven She also stated W time that y hatever all decide to give him I not trying to push for more In response the trial court m advised Ms Hodges that the offense of second degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment The court also noted that in an effort to determine how things got to where they were with defendant a presentence investigation was ordered Prior to imposing the sentence the court reviewed the report which included information about defendant criminal history and noted s that defendant had been in trouble with the law before He had prior convictions for possession of cocaine first degree robbery aggravated burglary simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling and DWI He also had an arrest for simple robbery As previously noted defendant sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor s is mandatory under the statute and thus is presumed constitutional It is therefore incumbent upon defendant to rebut this presumption Based upon our review of the record in this case we find that defendant has not clearly and convincingly 5 shown that because of unusual circumstances he was a victim of the legislature s failure to assign a sentence that was meaningfully tailored to his culpability the gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the case Forgiveness by the s victim family alone is insufficient to warrant a downward departure from the mandatory sentence As such there was no reason for the trial judge to deviate from the mandatory sentence provided for the instant offense by La R 14 S 30 1 See State v Henderson 991945 p 20 La App 1st Cir 6 762 So 00 23 2d 747 761 writ denied 2000 2223 La 6 793 So 1235 See also State v 01 15 2d Crotwell 2000 2551 p 16 La App 1st Cir 1 l 9 818 So 34 46 01 2d Furthermore we find that the record in this case adequately supports the life sentence Despite his claim that he fired the weapon out of fear the record reflects that defendant deliberately and repeatedly shot the sixteen year old female victim at least twice in the back Considering the callous disregard for life shown by this defendant and in light of his prior criminal history there was absolutely no reason for the trial court to deviate from the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment The imposition of the mandatory life imprisonment sentence herein is not a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering and it certainly does not shock our sense of justice This assignment of error lacks merit DECREE For the foregoing reasons the conviction and sentence of defendant Undre H Martin are affirmed CONVICTION AND SENTENCE 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.
