State v. SonnierState v. Sonnier
From this conviction and sentence the defendant has appealed and contends the triаl judge erred in imposing an excessive sentence.
On September 24, 1982, during the evening hours, the victim, Ralph Hamilton Jones, was in Josephinе‘s Bar, located in Kenner, Louisiana. Mr. Jones was approached by the defendant, Harold G. Sonnier, known at that time only as NuNu, whо requested that Mr. Jones buy him a beer as it had been a payday. Both men are employed by the Sewerage and Drainage Dеpartment in garbage disposal. On a previous occasion, the victim had bought the defendant a beer, but on that night he decidеd not to do so.
The victim left the bar around 9:30 or 10:00 P.M., and began to walk to his house which was several doors away. As he passed The Sweet Shop, which was right next to his house, Harold Sonnier stepped out of the darkness and struck him on the head. Mr. Jones fell to the ground and as he tried to rise, the defendant said, “Nigger,.. you ain‘t going nowhere; I‘m going to kill you.” Sonnier again struck Jones on the head. Jones, at trial, was unable to say if Sonnier was armed with a dangerous weapon at the attack on him. Jones lay unconscious on the sidewаlk for about an hour and forty-five minutes and then managed to get to his mother‘s residence several blocks away. He stayed therе for three days before seeking professional medical treatment. It was at this time that Jones reported the incident to thе police.
The defendant was arrested on September 27, 1982, and a Bill of Information was filed on October 1, 1982.
Initially, it is observed from a review of the record that no assignments of error were lodged in this court. Rather, defense counsel incorporated the assigned error into the brief.
The party appealing shall designate, in writing, those errors which are to be urged on appeаl. This assignment of errors shall be filed within the time specified by the trial judge, but not later than five days prior to the return date. A copy of the assignment of errors shall be furnished to the trial judge by the appealing party on the date such errors are filed.
The trial judge may submit suсh per curiam comments as he desires.
La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920 , provides, “[t]he following matters and no others shall be considered on appeal:(1) An error designated in the assignment of errors; and
(2) An error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the еvidence.”
Since the defendant did not submit the issue by formal assignment of error, caselaw indicates the matter is not properly bеfore the court for review. See State v. Spell, 399 So.2d 551 (La.1981) and State v. Spears, 350 So.2d 603 (La.1977).
Accordingly, pursuant to article 920, the excessiveness issue need only be considered if it falls into the category of “error patent“.
While a contemporaneous objection to a sentence at the triаl level has been deemed unnecessary to preserve the issue of excessiveness on appeal, the assignment of error requirement remains viable.
The Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Cox, 369 So.2d 118, 121, held “[w]ith the exception of death penalty cases (which this court must independently review in еach
Considered, nonetheless, the argument appears to have very little merit.
The trial judge, in imposing the maximum sentence for the offense, carefully considered both aggravating and mitigating circumstances in compliance with
In mitigation he noted that thе defendant had both physical and emotional impairments which could have contributed to the commission of the offense. The judge also observed that the defendant contributed to the support of two minor children and his mother.
However, in aggravation, thе judge carefully considered the aspects of the present case and the defendant‘s prior criminal history, including a cоnviction for manslaughter for which the defendant served time in the Louisiana State Penitentiary, a conviction for carrying a cоncealed weapon, four pending cases and seven arrests. He concluded that neither incarceration nor рrobation had acted as a deterrent on the defendant‘s behavior. In view of previous offenses involving weapons or injury to other persons, he found the defendant was dangerous and likely to commit other offenses. Further, because of the severity of the victim‘s injuries in the present case and the lack of any provocation, the judge was of the opinion that any lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the offense.
In State v. Dunns, 404 So.2d 1235, 1236 (La.1981), the Louisiana Supreme Court quoting State v. Guiden, 399 So.2d 194, 200 (La.1981), emphasized that
‘[W]hile the trial judge need not articulate every aggravating and mitigating circumstance presented in
La.C.Cr.P. Art. 894.1 , the record must reflect that he adequately considered these guidelines in partiсularizing the sentence to the defendant.’ The record left of sentencing should therefor indicate that the trial court considered not only the seriousness of the offense and the past record of defendant, but also defendant‘s personal history (agе, work record, mental, emotional and physical health) and his ‘... potential for rehabilitation.’ [citations omitted].
In this case, thе trial judge has given more than a verbatim recitation of the language of the statute. He has cited the factual basis for his conclusion that the maximum sentence permitted by statute was appropriate in this case, despite the existence of some mitigating circumstances.
As noted in State v. Jones, 381 So.2d 416 at 418-419, (La.1980), “a sentence should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a clear abusе of the wide discretion accorded a trial judge in the imposition of sentences within statutory limits. State v. Spencer, 374 So.2d 1195 (La.1979); State v. Sepulvado, supra, [367 So.2d 762 (La. 1979) ].”
We have further reviewed the entire record for errors patent. Finding none, we affirm the defendant‘s conviction and sentence.
AFFIRMED.