State Of Louisiana VS Leon Terrance Rounds, III
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PI iBLICATION STATF OF LOiJISIANt GOURT fJF APPEAL FIRST CIRCIIIT 2012 KA 0669 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS LEON TERRANCE ROUNDS III v Judgment Rendered FEB 2 5 2J13 J On Appeal from the 19thJudicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Ba2an Rouge Trial Court Number 01 0304 09 The Honorable Richard D Anderson Judge Presiding Hillar C Moore III Counsel far Appellee District State of Louisiana Attorney Tracey E Barbera Stacy L Wright Assistant District Attorneys Baton Rouge Louisiana Frederick Kroenke Louisiana Appellate Project Baton Rouge Louisiana Counsel for Defendant ellant Ap Leon Terrance Ronnds III BEFORE PARRO HUGHES AND WELCH JJ HUGHES J The defendant Leon Terrance Round III was charged by an amended bill of information with one count of second degree battery Count I a violation of S R 1and one count of illegal use ofzv C II a violation LSA 1434 apons unt of LSA 14 he pled guilt On Cuar I he was sentenced to fve years at S R 94 Y hard labor On Count II he was seritanced to two ears at hard labor The trial court ordered that the sentences imposed on Counts I and II would run concurrently with each other The defendant now appeals contending that the trial court imposed unconstitutionally excessive sentences and tnat his trial s counsel failure to make ar file a motion to reeonsider s constituted ntence ineffective assistance of counsel Far the following reasons we affirm the convictions and sentences FACTS Due to the defendant guil pleas there was no trial and thus no trial s ty testimony concerning the offenses The State however set forth the following factual basis far the guilty pleas which the defendant accepted On October 28 2008 the defend gpt into a disagraernenP with the nt viciim Tanisha Stokes the moYher of one f his childrefi During the argument the defendant armed himself witrr a and fired 2he weapon at the vietim in a uzn residential neighborhood The victim was sUruck in the aran by the gunfire causing her serious bodily injury nd extreme physical pain LAW AND ANALY SIS In his first assignment of error the defendant argues that imposition of the greatest possible sentence is grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of the offenses and is nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and 2 suffering In his second assigrunent o1F error Yhe ie argues that this court endant should consider the aonstitutianality of tY sentences even though his triai counsel e ed fail to fil a motion to reconsider the sEntence and in he event this coixrt finds e the failure of trial counsel to make ox le a motiari to reconsider the sentence precludes c of the constitutionalit3 uf the uente then the trial onsideration ices sfailure to make the motion cma ineff assistance of counsel counsel stitutes ctive We will address the detendant first assignment of error even though no s timely motion to reconsider the sentence impased or contemporaneous objection was made before the trial court since it would be a necessary part of the analysis of his assigned error as to ineffective assistance of counsel and to do so is in the interesY of judicial economy See State v Bicliham 98 La pp 1 Cir 39 1 99 25 6 739 So 887 891 2d 92 essive Exc Sentences Artiicle I Section 20 of th Louisiana ConstiYution prohibits the imposition of excessive punishment Although a sentence may be within statutory limits it may violate a defendant constitutional righ agairst excessive punishment and is s t subject to appellate review Generally a sentence is considered excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the criine or is nothing more than the needless imposition of pain and suffering A 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 ofjustice A trial s judge is given wide discretian in the imposifron of sentences within statutory limits and the sentence imposed s tiot e set aside as excessive in the iould absence of manifest abuse of discretion Sfate v Hardeman 2004 La 0760 App 1 Cir 2 906 So 616 627 State v Hurst 99 La Ap 1 OS 18 2d 2fs6 3 Cir 10 797 So 75 3 writ denied 2000 La 10 798 Sa2d 00 3 2d 3053 O1 5 962 In the instant case with respect to Count I LSA 14 prior to its S R 341 amendment by 2009 La Acts No 264 1 and 2012 a I Acts No 40 1 provided that w commits the crime c second degree battery shall be hoever f fined not more than two thousand dollars or im with or without hard risoned labor for not more than fiv years or both On Count I the defendant was sentenced to five years at hard labor With respect to Count II LSA 14 SB R 94 provides that whoever commits the crime of illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than two years or both On Count II the defendant was sentenced to two years at hard labor The Lrial court ordered that the sentences imposed on Counts I and II would run concurrently with each other The Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth items that must be considered by the trial court before imposing sentence See LSA art P Cr C 1 894 The trial court need not recite the entire checklist ofArticle 894 but the 1 record must reflect that it adequately considered the criteria In light of the criteria expressed in Article 894 a review far individual excessiveness should consider 1 the circumstances of th crime and the trial court stated reasons and factual basis s for its sentencing decision State v Hardeman 906 Sa2d at 626 State v 27 Hurst 797 So at 83 2d At sentencing the trial court noted that th defendant had originally been arrested for and booked with five counts of attempted first degree murder in 1 While the record in this case shows that the defendant was arrested for five counts of attempted first degxee murder the bill of information filed by the district attorney originally charged the defendant with attempted second degree murder 4 connection with the incident The court also noted that the defendant had fired three to five shots in the incident Additionally the court stated that it had ordered reviewed and considered a presentence investigation report PSI in the case as well as letters from family and friends and ministers The PSI indicated that while out un bond in connection wi the instant offenses the defendant was h charged with simple battery second degree battery and aggravated assault following another attack on the victim The second incident resulted from the defendant demanding 30 from the victim far transporting her to a doctor s appointment and her refusal to pay him any more than 10 Thereafter the defendant pushed the victim to the ground striking her head several times on the concrete The victim told the defendant she would have him arrested for shooting her in the incident that resulted in the init charges filed against him al The defendant responded by removing a gun from his vehicle and threatening to shoot the victim again In sentencing the defendant the court noted that the defendant was thirty ree tl years old he was a first offender he was single and he had a four felony old year daughter from his five relationship with the victim The court long year further recited the defendant semployment and education history The court also stated that in connection with the PSI the defendant had been interviewed and claimed that he was sorry for what had happened to the victim h1s daughter and the other persons involved he also claimed he had become closer to God while incarcerated and was a changed man The trial court further pointed out that the defendant had greatly reduced his 5 penalty exposure by agreeing to lead guilty t amended charges in this matter A trial judge must consider every circumstance surrounding the offense including plea bargaining To do otherwise wauid be to ignoxe clearly reievant information that has an important bearing on the true natur of the defendant conduct and the s type of punishment most appropriate foi that conduct Therefore a trial court may permissibly consider in imposing sentence the fact that a defendant has reduced his penalty exposure by plea bargaining See State v Lanclos 419 So 475 478 2d La 1982 A thorough review of the record reveals the trial court adequately considered the criteria of Article 894 and did not manifestly abuse its discretion in imposing 1 the sentences herein See LSA rt 894 A B B P Cr C A 1 3 5 10 12 18 21 B B B and B Further the sentences imposed were not 33 grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses and thus were not unconstitutionally excessive See State v Letell 2012 La App 1 Cir 0 01 12 2S 10 103 So 1129 ll39 3d We further conclude that maYimum senterices were justified under the particular facts and circurnstances of this case Maximurr sentences may be imposed for the most serious offenses and ihe worst offenders ar when the offender poses an unusual risk to the public safety due t his past conduct of repeated criminality State v Miller 96 La App 1 Cir 11 703 So 698 701 2040 97 7 2d writ denied 98 La 5 71 So 459 0039 98 15 9 2d We deem the defendant s offenses as among the most serious offenses he repeatedly fired a gun in a residential neighborhood which resulted in a risk of death or sez bodily harm to Z The defendant was originally charged wiYh the attempted second degree murder of Tanisha Stokes a v of LSA 14 and LSA 14 but with the consent of the victim olation S1 R 30 S R 2 and as part of a plea bargain the bill ofinformation was amended to reduce the charges io second degree battery and illegal use of weapons as stated hereinabove 6 the victim ivho was shot and everyone else present in the neighborhood Further the defendant is among the most serious of offenders since while out on bond on the shooting offense he attacked the victim an threatened to shoot her again The i defendant was originally charged with t z second degree murder of the e tt d mpt victim his child mother and the c wer rrlended to the pres lesser s es har nt charges as a result of a plea bargain and Ehe victim cQns to the a s nt iendment greatly lessening the sentence h faced for his actions Ineffective Assistance of Counsel A claim of ineffectiveness of counsel is analyzed under the two test pronged developed by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v Washington 466 S U 668 104 S 2052 80 L 674 1984 In order to establish that his Ct 2d Ed trial attorney was ineffective the defendant znust first show that the attorney s performance was deficient which requires a showing that counsel made errors so serious that he was not functioning as c guaranteed by the Sixth unsel Amendment Secondly the defendant must tove that the defcient perforniance prejudiced the defense This element requires a showing that the errors were so serious that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial the defenc musf prove tant actual prejudice befare relief wiil be granted It is not sufficient for the defendant to show that the errar had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding Rather he must show that but for the counsePs unprofessional errors there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the trial would have been different Fureher it is unnecessary to address the issues of both counsel s performance and prejudice to the defendant if the defendant makes an inadequate 3 We note that the crime of attempted second degree murder would have carried a potential sentenee of imprisonrnent at hard labor for not les5 than en nor more than fifly years i tnout benefit of parale probation or suspension of sentence pursnant to LSA 14 and S L7 R 27 a 1 S1 R30 LSA 14 B showing on one of the components State v Lucas 99 La l 1 Cir 1524 pp 00 12 5 762 So 717 728 State v Serign 610 So 8 859 La App 2d 2d 5 60 7 1 Cir 1992 writ denied 614 So 1263 La 1993 2d Assuming arguendo that the d trial couns performed s iant fan l deficiently in failing to timely move for reconszderation o the sentences the defendant suffered no prejudice from the deficient performance since this court considered the defendant sexcessive sentences argument in connection with the ineffective assistance of counsel claim These assignments of errar are without merit CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED 8
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.
