State v. Cunningham, 77 So. 3d 477

Cunningham, a cab driver, was convicted of one count of bank fraud (R.S. 14:71.1) after a two-day trial in October 2010.
Co-defendant Shalondrea Holmes forged her grandmother’s checks and directed Cunningham to cash one check at Regions Bank.
Holmes presented a check payable to Cunningham for $415, forged on her grandmother Earline Thomas’s account; Cunningham endorsed and cashed it, receiving $415 and sharing $200 with Holmes.
Thomas noticed the unauthorized debit, filed an affidavit, and Regions Bank refunded the funds; surveillance and bank records supported Cunningham’s involvement.
Cunningham had seven prior felony convictions; the district court sentenced him to the maximum 10 years at hard labor, based on his criminal history.
On appeal, Cunningham argues insufficient evidence of specific intent to defraud and that the sentence is excessive; the court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict bank fraud	Cunningham knowingly joined the scheme and intended to defraud the bank.	Holmes orchestrated the fraud; Cunningham lacked authority and intent and merely accompanied her.	Evidence supports all elements; Cunningham knowingly participated.
Whether the sentence for bank fraud is excessive	Unlikely rehabilitation; seven prior felonies justify maximum sentence.	Efforts at rehabilitation; small loss; no violence; not the worst offender.	No abuse of discretion; sentence not grossly excessive.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Forbs, 983 So.2d 954 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2008) (intent to deceive to obtain bank money; similarities to 18 U.S.C. § 1344)
State v. Pigford, 922 So.2d 517 (La. 2006) (reliance on credibility and evidentiary review standard)
State v. Sosa, 921 So.2d 94 (La. 2006) (credibility and standard of review for factual findings)
State v. Huizar, 414 So.2d 741 (La. 1982) (defendant’s intent determined by fact-finder; Jackson standard applies)
State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (constitutional excessiveness standard for sentences)
State v. Guzman, 769 So.2d 1158 (La. 2000) (proportionality considerations in sentencing)
State v. Williams, 893 So.2d 7 (La. 2004) (discretionary latitude in within-limit sentencing)
State v. Linnear, 26 So.3d 303 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2009) (guidelines-based considerations in sentencing)
State v. Lobato, 603 So.2d 739 (La. 1992) (remand not required if record adequately reflects reasons)