121 So. 3d 119
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant William Anderson was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual battery, one count of oral sexual battery, and one count of molestation of a juvenile based on conduct with victim L.L.P. beginning when she was 14 and continuing until about age 16. Evidence of a separate similar offense involving a 15–16 year old (S.A.) was admitted under La. C.E. art. 412.2 as proof of a lustful disposition.
- On first appeal this court affirmed convictions but vacated the sentences and remanded for re-sentencing because the trial court failed to observe the 24-hour delay required by La. C.Cr.P. art. 873. State v. Anderson, 91 So.3d 1080 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2012).
- At re-sentencing the trial court again imposed maximum statutory terms (10 years for each sexual battery count; 15 years for oral sexual battery; 15 years for molestation), ordered most counts to be served without benefit, and ordered all sentences consecutive (total 50 years), plus consecutive to a separate 7-year sentence from an unrelated conviction.
- Defendant appealed (this is his second appeal), raising a counseled claim that the sentences are excessive and several pro se claims (insufficiency, improper charging element for count 4, erroneous admission of other-crimes evidence, ex post facto challenge to amended procedural rule, and illegality/excessiveness of sentences).
- The court declined to revisit claims already litigated and decided in the first appeal (sufficiency, ex post facto/571.1 issue, proof of “control or supervision” for count 4), holding those matters waived or previously resolved.
- The court affirmed the re-imposed maximum sentences, finding (1) defendant exploited a position of trust and groomed the victim, (2) his background included a prior conviction for indecent behavior with a juvenile, and (3) comparable jurisprudence upholds maximum sentences in similar factual situations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive sentence | State: sentences within statutory limits and justified by nature of crimes, grooming, and public safety risk | Anderson: maximum consecutive terms are excessive; he is a first-time felony offender and not the worst offender | Court: No abuse of discretion; maximum consecutive terms justified by grooming, exploitation of trust, prior related conviction, and comparable precedent — affirmed |
| Illegality re: element of control for count 4 | State: evidence established control/supervision over juvenile | Anderson: State failed to prove control or supervision; 15-year sentence illegal | Court: Issue already decided on first appeal (evidence showed control); will not reconsider — no relief |
| Admission of other-crimes evidence (La. C.E. art. 412.2) | State: prior similar offense admissible to show lustful disposition | Anderson: Article 412.2 did not exist at time of offenses; admission improper | Court: Issue either previously raised or waived; prior ruling stands — no relief |
| Ex post facto challenge to amended La.C.Cr.P. art. 571.1 | Anderson: application of amended provision violated ex post facto clause | State: amendment occurred before statutory period expired for charged offenses | Court: Previously addressed and rejected on first appeal; no new grounds shown — no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 91 So.3d 1080 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2012) (appellate decision affirming convictions but vacating original sentences for 24–hour delay and resolving related challenges)
- State v. Thibodeaux, 924 So.2d 1205 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2006) (affirming consecutive maximum sentences for molestation where defendant preyed on victims over time)
- State v. Hubb, 700 So.2d 1103 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1997) (upholding multi-year sentences for sexual battery involving young victims despite limited prior record)
- State v. Wickem, 759 So.2d 961 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2000) (standards for determining unconstitutionally excessive sentences)
- State v. Ferrie, 144 So.2d 380 (La. 1962) (principles regarding legislative amendments and applicability)
- State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975) (standard for errors patent review)