State Of Louisiana VS Rondell Delaney
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PtiBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA iOF APPEAL COUR RST tJI F CIRC I RBER NUI 2012 KA OSOS STATE OF LOTJISII NA VERSUS RONDELL DELANEY Judgment Rendered DEC 2 1 2012 Appealed from the Second Twenty Tudicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana SuitNumber 502481 1 Honorable William J Burris Judge Walter P Reed CQUnsel for Plaintiff Appellee District State of Louisiana Attorney Covington LA Kathryn W Landry Special Appeals Counsel Baton Rouge LA Lieu T Vo Clark Counsel for DefendandAppellant Louisiana Rondell Delaney Appellate Project Mandeville LA BEFORE CARTER C GUIDRY J AND GAIDRY JJ GUIDRY J Defendant Rondell Delaney and two codefendants were charged by bill of information with one count f armed robbery a violation of La R 14 He S 64 pled not guilty and after a jury trial was foun guilty as charged The trial court denied defendant smotions for new trial and postverdict judgment of acquittal and sentenced defendant to serve thirty years at hard labor without benefit of fave parole probation or suspension of sentence Defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence but the trial court denied that motion Defendant now appeals alleging that the trial court erred in denying his motion to reconsider sentence and in imposing an excessive sentence For the following reasons we affirm s defendant conviction and sentence FACTS On the evening of December 23 2010 Dylan Wood was delivering pizzas for pomino Pizza in Slidell when he was assigned to make a delivery to 59320 s Banner Road As he drove down Banner Road attempting to locate the address for his delivery Wood was flagged down by a black male who informed him that he had placed the order The black male instructed Wood to bring the pizza to the door of a nearby residence where his aunt would pay for it Wood reversed his car into the residence driveway gathered the pizzas for delivery and exited his s vehicle As Wood began to walk toward the residence the black male approached him with a silver or chrome object that appeared to be a semiautomatic pistol He positioned himself behind Wood and pressed the weapon into Wood back as he s ordered Wood to get onto his hands and knees The perpetrator then searched s Wood pockets and removed his wallet delivery bank cell phone and keys During this time approximately four other black males emerged from behind a Codefendants Henry Banks and Damion Stevenson both later pled guilty to accessory after the fact to armed robbery a violation of La R 14 and 14 They are not par ro this appeal S 25 64 ies 2 nearby tree and approached the area where Wood knelt on the ground After waiting for a few minutes Wood looked around and discovered that he appeared to be alone taken He noticed at that time that his insulated pizza carrier had also been from where he presumably dro ped it near his vehicle He ran approximately one a of a mile back to his Domino store and called the uarter s police Later on the same evening the police were able to ping the cell phone used to place the delivery call and they traced its location to a house in a subdivision near to where the offense occurred At this location the police encountered defendant his two codefendants and ajuvenile who was also charged in connection with the instant offense During a search of the premises and the suspects police officers were able to recover Wood wallet keys cell phone s insulated pizza carrier and a couple items of discarded clothing Defendant was also found to possess currency in the same denominations carried by Wood in his personal wallet and his delivery bank Defendant later gave a recorded statement to detectives where he admitted committin the robbery but insisted that he had only used a pipe instead of a gun ciuring the offerise ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR In his two assignments of enor defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to reconsider sentence and in imposing a constitutionally excessive sentence Specifically defendant argues that his sentence of thirty five years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence is excessive in light of his youth at the time of the offense and his lack of a significant felony history Because defendant stwo assignments of error involve the same arguments we address them together Article I Section 20 of the Louisiana Consfitution prohibits the imposition of excessive puniskunent Although a sentence may be within statutory limits it 3 may violate a defendant constitutional right again excessive punishment and is s t subject to appellate review State v Sepulvado 3fi7 So 2d 762 767 La 1979 See also State v Lanieu 98 La App st Cir 4i1 734 So 2d 89 97 126t 99 writ denied 99 La 10 I50 Soo d 962 A sentence is coastitutionally 1259 99 8 excessive if it is grossly dispr to the severity of the off ar is nothing nate rti p nse more than a purposeless and needless inflictio of pain and suffering See State v a Dorthev 623 So 2d 1276 1280 1993 A sentence is grossly disproportionate La if when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the hatm done to society it shocks the sense of justice State v Ho 480 So 2d 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 Lobato 603 So 2d 739 751 La 1992 The Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure sets farth items that must be considered by the trial court before imposing sentence La C art 894 L The P Cr trial court need not cite the entire checklist of Article 894 but the record must 1 reflect that it adequately considered the guidelines State v Aerrin 562 So 2d 1 11 La App 1 st Cir writ denied 565 So 2d 942 La 1990 In light of the criteria expressed by Article 894 a review for individual excessiveness shouid 1 consider the circumstances of the crime and the trial court stated reasons and s factual basis for its sentencing decision State v Watkins 532 So 2d 1182 ll86 La App lst Cir 1988 Remand for full com with Article 894 is pliance 1 unnecessary when a sufficient factual basis far the sentence is shown State v Lanclos 419 So 2d 475 478 La 1982 For his conviction for armed robbery defendant was eligible to receive a sentence of ten to ninety years at hard labor without benefit of parole nine probation or suspension of sentence La R 14 He actually received a S 64 B 4 sentence of thirty years at hard Iabor witho benefit of parole probation or five at suspension of sentence Prior to imposing sentence on defendant the trial court considered the contents of a victim impact statement from Dylan Vood in whi he testified to h the lingering adverse psychological effects thBt he has experienced since the robbery The trial court also considered testimony from defendant grandfather s which detailed defendant troubled childhood including a diagnosis of attention s deficit disorder Finally the trial court ordered and received a presentence investigation report PSI that detailed defendant sprior but minimal criminal history In considering the Article 894 factors the trial court noted that neither a 1 probated nor a suspended sentence would ee available to defendant for his offense The trial court also found that defendant was in need of correctional treatment in a custodial environment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution The trial court also beiieved that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of defendant offense s The trial court stated that defendant s conduct during the armed robbery manifested a deliberate cruelty to the victim and that de used threats of violence and a dangerous weapon in the commission endant of the offense Finally the trial court found that defendant acted as a leader in concert with other persons in committing the armed robbery In mitigation the trial court noted defendant youth and his relative lack of a criminal history s Considering the reasons stated by the trial court and based on the entire record before us we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in sentencing defendant The trial court adequately considered those mitigating factors raised by defendant in his instant appeal and clearly found them to be outweighed by the aggravating factors cited in its reasons for sentence s Defendant sentence of five thirty years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension 5 of sentence is neither grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime in light ofthe harm to society nor so disproportionate as to shock our sense ofjustice These assignments of error lack rnerit For the foregoing reasons we affrm defendant sconviction and sentence SENTENCE AND CONVICTION FFIRMED 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.
