State v. Fontenot, 166 So. 3d 1215

Background

Defendant William Allen Fontenot pled guilty to hit-and-run driving resulting in a death (La. R.S. 14:100.2) after striking Kimberly Bickham, who was sitting in the middle of a rural road.
After the collision, Fontenot drove about 200 yards to his residence and remained there until contacted by deputies two hours later; he told deputies he thought he hit a dog, cooperated, and submitted to testing.
Preliminary testimony indicated .000% BAC but positive tests for THC, THC metabolites, and Xanax; no toxicology report or timing evidence was in the record.
At plea colloquy Fontenot denied knowing he struck a person; he pled guilty under an agreement to avoid habitual offender treatment.
At sentencing the trial court relied on speculation (possible distraction or impairment, witness reports) and the defendant’s prior contacts with police to impose a nine‑year hard labor sentence (near statutory maximum) without a presentence investigation.
The appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, ordering a presentence investigation because the record showed inadequate factual basis and the trial judge failed to comply with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the nine‑year sentence is excessive under Art. I, §20 of the LA Constitution	State: sentence justified by seriousness and defendant’s record and circumstances	Fontenot: sentence excessive, failed to consider mitigating factors (remorse, cooperation, lack of knowledge)	Not reached — remand for resentencing due to Art. 894.1 defects
Whether trial court complied with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 (must state considerations and factual basis)	State: trial court articulated reasons at sentencing	Fontenot: sentencing judge speculated, failed to properly state factual basis and consider mitigating facts	Court: inadequate compliance; recitation contained speculation and assumptions; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing with PSI ordered
Whether trial court properly relied on alleged impairment and criminal history as aggravating factors	State: impairment and prior contacts justify harsher sentence	Fontenot: record lacks toxicology, dispositions, and meaningful criminal‑history detail to support reliance	Held: trial court relied on thin/inconclusive facts; reliance on assumptions improper
Whether defendant’s guilty plea relieved trial court of need to establish factual basis at sentencing	State: plea and DA’s recitation sufficient	Fontenot: plea did not negate need to consider mitigating facts for sentencing	Held: plea does not excuse trial court from considering mitigating factors or from adequate Art. 894.1 articulation; remand required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Marshall, 660 So.2d 819 (La. 1995) (reviewing court must determine trial judge's compliance with Art. 894.1 before reviewing excessiveness)
State v. Linnear, 26 So.3d 303 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2009) (same standard on sentencing review)
State v. Lobato, 603 So.2d 739 (La. 1992) (if Art. 894.1 adequately complied with, appellate court then reviews proportionality)
State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049 (La. 1981) (factors to consider at sentencing: personal history, prior record, seriousness, likelihood of rehabilitation)
State v. Ates, 989 So.2d 259 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2008) (Articulation of factual basis is goal of Art. 894.1)
State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (a sentence violates La. Const. art. I, §20 if grossly disproportionate)
State v. Weaver, 805 So.2d 166 (La. 2002) (gross disproportionality standard articulated)
State v. Bowers, 965 So.2d 959 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2007) (affirming lesser sentence where defendant fled scene and was not found for a week)
State v. Wallace, 602 So.2d 296 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1992) (five‑year sentence where defendant impaired, lacked remorse, and had extensive record)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (plea may stand where defendant maintains innocence but plea is voluntary; factual basis only required when court is put on notice of need)