250 So. 3d 1200
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Marquell Williams was tried and convicted by a jury of: molestation of a juvenile under 13 (Count One) and indecent behavior with a juvenile (Count Two).
- Victim (V.G.) testified (and forensic interview videos were played) that Williams touched her inappropriately on Jan 28, 2014 (age 11) and Dec 12, 2015 (age 13); victim’s younger sister also reported inappropriate touching.
- Jury found Williams guilty as charged on Count One and guilty of the responsive verdict of indecent behavior on Count Two.
- Trial court sentenced Williams to 45 years at hard labor on Count One (25 years to be served without parole/probation/suspension) and 5 years at hard labor on Count Two; sentences to run consecutively.
- Williams moved to reconsider sentence arguing constitutional excessiveness; trial court denied the motion. Williams appealed sole issue of excessive sentence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Williams' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence is constitutionally excessive | Sentences appropriate given prolonged sexual abuse, victim’s permanent emotional injury | Sentence (50 years total; 25 years without benefits) is excessive for a 29‑year‑old first‑felony offender | Affirmed: sentences not constitutionally excessive |
| Whether trial court complied with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 in sentencing | Record shows trial court considered statutory aggravating/mitigating factors | Trial court failed to adequately consider mitigation and used improper aggravators | Trial court complied with art. 894.1; articulated applicable factors and found no mitigating factors |
| Whether consecutive sentences were justified | Consecutive terms supported by record facts (multiple victims/incidents and abuse of trust) | Consecutive terms amount to excessive punishment | Consecutive sentencing within discretion; record provides adequate factual basis |
| Preservation of sentencing issues on appeal | Motion to reconsider preserved bare excessiveness claim; no need for greater specificity | Argued trial court failed to consider mitigating factors and overstated aggravators | Appellate review limited to constitutional excessiveness; art. 881.1 satisfied for bare excessiveness claim |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993) (motion to reconsider preserves bare claim of excessiveness on appeal)
- State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La. 1983) (trial court must adequately consider art. 894.1 guidelines)
- State v. Bonanno, 384 So.2d 355 (La. 1980) (definition of constitutional excessiveness: grossly out of proportion or purposeless pain)
- State v. Williams, 893 So.2d 7 (La. 2004) (appellate review tests for abuse of sentencing discretion)
- State v. Hebert, 181 So.3d 795 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2015) (consecutive sentences from related conduct are not per se excessive; discretion to impose consecutives)