State v. Parker
116 So. 3d 744
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Jonathan Parker faced two indictments: bill of information 27572 with indecent behavior with a juvenile (14:81(A)(2)) and pornography involving juveniles (14:81.1), and bill of information 27573 with computer-aided solicitation of a minor (14:81.3) and extortion (14:66(3)]; he pled guilty to all four counts after originally entering not guilty pleas.
- Boykin proceedings summarized the factual bases for the charged offenses, which the defendant accepted as accurate at sentencing.
- PSI indicated the victim was coerced by the defendant in Ascension Parish and that explicit photos and threats were used to obtain further images; the defendant later admitted sending photos.
- The offenses occurred via electronic communications and acts targeted at a minor in Ascension Parish, establishing proper venue despite Texas residence.
- The trial court imposed concurrent sentences totaling 42 years with a substantial portion without parole; the court considered the PSI and state recommendations in fashioning sentencing.
- Appellate review affirmed the convictions and sentences and rejected the ineffective assistance, withdrawal of guilty pleas, and excessiveness challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue/jurisdiction sufficiency for venue | State asserts venue proper in Ascension Parish; Texas residence not fatal | Parker contends venue improper or lack of jurisdiction | Assignment of error rejected; venue upheld |
| Withdrawal of guilty pleas | State argues plea knowingly and intelligently entered | Parker claims plea was not knowingly intelligent or voluntary due to alleged misrepresentation | Denied; court found no abuse of discretion and that concurrent sentences mitigated concerns |
| Excessive sentences under Article 894.1 | State argues sentences within statutory limits and supported by PSI | Parker claims sentences are grossly disproportionate given age and lack of prior felonies | Affirmed; sentences not grossly disproportionate and within permissible range |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roblow, 623 So.2d 51 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1993) (venue as jurisdictional; burden on State to prove venue by preponderance)
- State v. Hayes, 837 So.2d 1195 (La.1/28/2003) (substantial-contact requirement for venue analysis)
- State v. Odom, 861 So.2d 195 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2003) (consideration of venue when acts occurred in multiple places)