State v. DavisState v. Davis
Aftеr being indicted for 31 crimes arising out of his sexual activities with his daughter and her children, who were his 7-year-old granddaughter and his 12-year-old grandson, and bargaining to plead guilty to newly-filed bills for the lesser crimes of sexual battery and molestation, this 57-year-old defendant appeals, as excessive, his consecutive and maximum sentences which total 25 years at hаrd labor. We affirm.
FACTS
Defendant‘s 35-year-old daughter asserted that defendant had engaged in incestuous activity with her for about thirty years. Defendant аdmitted incest on “approximately five occasions.”
The 7-yeаr-old granddaughter asserted defendant had penetrated her at her home after a football game in 1985. The 12-year-old grandson asserted that defendant anally penetrated him during October 1985. Defendant admitted that he only “attempted” to penetrate in each instancе. Touching, not penetration, is the critical element in the crime of sexuаl battery.
Defendant contends that his first felony status, his need for psychiatric сounseling, his being the victim of abuse as a child, his record in church and community activities, and the need of his invalid wife, negate or mitigate maximum and сonsecutive sentences. For reasons given by the trial court and illuminеd and supported by the record and PSI, we cannot agree.
Defеndant‘s 31 indictments included four counts of aggravated rape in two indictments, 20 counts of incest in one indictment, as well as indictments for an aggravated crime against nature, an aggravated oral sexual battery, attempted molestation, and extortion. His sentence exposurе was greatly reduced (e.g., from four life sentences without probation, parole, or suspension of sentences for aggravated raрe and 300 years exposure in the 20-count incest indictments) by the plea bargain to 10 years for the sexual battery and to 15 years for the molestation.
Maximum sentences are reserved for the most egregious аnd blameworthy offenders. Concurrent sentences are favored in those crimes arising out of a single course of conduct. Compare State v. Patrick, 513 So.2d 449 (La.App.2d Cir. 1987). Defendant‘s crimes did not arise out of a single course of conduct and are not best described solely by the twо crimes to which he agreed to plead guilty and thus reduce his sentenсe exposure. The trial court correctly weighed and proрerly considered the leniency shown defendant in the plea bargаin and the history of defendant‘s behavior. These articulated factors legally justify the maximum and consecutive sentences, 10 years for sexual battery
This record shows that defendant, after his marriage, not only has аbused two generations of his descendants, but, before his marriage, his cоllateral relations in his own generation. The record also indicates that his young victims are beginning to sexually abuse others.
We adopt with approval the trial court‘s sentencing reasons which we apрend as an unpublished appendix. The trial court‘s sentencing reasons are supported by the record and fully comply with the sentencing guidelines of
The sentences are not excessive and are AFFIRMED.