State Of Louisiana VS Kentrell Forcell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2015 KA 0730 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS KENTRELL FORCELL Judgment Rendered: NOV 0 6 2015 Appealed from the 23rd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Ascension State of Louisiana Case No. 32580 The Honorable Thomas J. Kliebert, Jr., Judge Presiding Lieu T. Vo Clark Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Mandeville, Louisiana Kentrell Forcell Ricky L. Babin Counsel for Appellee District Attorney State of Louisiana Donald D. Candell Assistant District Attorney Gonzales, Louisiana BEFORE: McDONALD, McCLENDON, AND THERIOT, JJ. THERIOT,J. The defendant, Kentrell Forcell, was charged by bill of information with aggravated assault with a firearm, a violation of La. R.S. 14:37.4, and initially pied not guilty. After a jury was selected, the defendant withdrew his former plea and entered a plea of guilty as charged. The trial court denied the defendant's subsequent motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court sentenced the defendant to seven years imprisonment at hard labor. The defendant timely appealed. Based on the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence. STATEMENT OF FACTS The defendant withdrew his former plea of not guilty and pied guilty as charged before the presentation of evidence; therefore, the facts were not fully developed in this case. The statement of facts herein is based on the bill of information, the arrest report narrative, and the factual basis presented 1 during the Boykin examination. On March 17, 2014, Deputy Roman Barthelomew of the Ascension Parish Sheriffs Office was dispatched to 1201 McKinley Street, Donaldsonville, Louisiana, in reference to a reported aggravated assault. Upon arrival, Deputy Barthelomew interviewed Greg Walker. Walker stated that the defendant and his friend, LaRan Jackson, had an altercation two weeks prior to the instant incident. Regarding the instant incident, Walker advised that he and Jackson were riding in Walker's vehicle on St. Patrick Street when the defendant pulled out a gun, pointed it toward the vehicle, and started running after the vehicle. 1 Walker drove to his residence on Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). 2 McKinley Street and called the police. The defendant agreed with the factual basis presented during the Boykin examination. DISCUSSION In his sole assignment of error, the defendant argues that the trial The defendant contends that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. court did not consider any pertinent mitigating evidence. He specifically notes that the trial court failed to consider that the instant offense was brief, that the offense did not involve the discharge of a weapon, and that the defendant concedes accepted responsibility that incarceration. due to his by pleading guilty. criminal history, he The deserves defendant a period of He contends that the imposed sentence is at the high end of the sentencing range, and argues that he is not the worst type of offender and that the instant offense is not the worst type of aggravated assault with a firearm. Before accepting the defendant' s guilty plea, the trial court noted that the State agreed not to file a habitual offender bill of information. The trial court also informed the defendant of the sentencing range of zero to ten years imprisonment and that he would be sentenced somewhere within that range. In imposing the sentence, the trial court considered the instant offense and the defendant' s social and criminal history as contained in the presentence investigation report ( PSI), including crimes against property, crimes of violence, and crimes involving firearms beginning in 2004 to the 2014 instant offense. The PSI details a lengthy arrest record, notes dispositions for some arrests, and classifies the defendant as a third-felony offender. A review of the record indicates that the defendant failed to preserve for review the issue of excessive sentencing. 3 The defendant did not file a written motion to reconsider sentence in this case. Further, although the defense attorney moved to withdraw and appoint the appellate project, there was no objection to the sentence imposed by the trial court. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 881.1(A)(1) provides: " In felony cases, within thirty days following the imposition of sentence or within such longer period as the trial court may set at sentence, the state or the defendant may make or file a motion to reconsider sentence." Failure to make or file a motion to reconsider sentence or to include a specific ground upon which a motion to reconsider sentence may be based, including a claim of excessiveness, shall preclude the State or the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or from urging any ground not raised in the motion on appeal or review. La. Code Crim. P. art. 881.1(E); State v. Duncan, 94- 1563 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/15/95), 667 So.2d 1141, 1143 ( en bane per curiam); see also State v. Caldwell, 620 So.2d 859 ( La. 1993); State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993) ( per curiam); State v. Bickham, 98-1839 La. App. 1st Cir. 6/25/ 99), 739 So.2d 887, 891. The defendant' s failure to urge any specific ground for reconsideration of the sentence by oral or written motion at the trial court level precludes our review of the excessive sentence issue raised on appeal. Thus, the defendant' s arguments are not properly before this Court and we find no merit in the sole assignment of error. 2 CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED. 2 We have reviewed the record of the instant case for any sentencing errors discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the evidence. See State v. Price, 2005-2514 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/28/06), 952 So.2d 112, 123- 25 ( en bane), writ denied, 2007-0130 (La. 2/22/08), 976 So.2d 1277. We have found no patent errors. 4
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.
