State v. WaltersState v. Walters
Douglas R. Haynes, II, Stephen T. Sylvester, Monroe, for appellee.
STEWART, Judge.
Defendant, who was charged with aggravated rape, was cоnvicted of sexual battery following a trial by jury. The trial court imposed a nine-year hard labor sentence. Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the sentence is excessive. We affirm.
FACTS
Defendant, James R. Walters, was arrested and charged with aggravated rape of a seven year old boy. The victim, TM, was found by the court to be a competent witness and testified that the incident at issue happened while he was at his grandmother‘s house. She had gone to bed, but TM and defendant remained in the living room, watching television. Defendant was on the couch. He told TM to come over, and took out his private part. Defendant told TM to suck it, forcing him to do so. TM testified that he didn‘t want to do that. Defendant then made TM turn around and defendant pulled TM‘s pants down, bent him over, and performed anal intercourse on the child. He also fondled the boy‘s genitals.
Gertie Marshall, with whom defendаnt had an intimate relationship, testified that on the date charged, February 27-28, 1993, she, defendant, and TM were at Gertie‘s daughter‘s trailer. TM‘s mother was at Gertie‘s house at the time. Gertie confirmed that defendant
Several days later, Gertie noticed that TM‘s mouth was swollen. She asked him what was wrong. He cried out that defendant, whom he called “Papa,” forced him to perform fellatio, fondled his genitals, and engaged in аnal intercourse with him. Gertie had TM tell his mother, Karen, what had happened. Karen called defendant on the telephone. Before she could say what the boy had told her, defendant said TM was lying.
Dr. Meade O‘Boyle, a pediatrician, testified that she had specialized training and experience in child sexual abuse cases. The trial court accepted her аs an expert witness without objection. She explained that she had interviewed and examined TM. The boy told her what defendant had done. TM correctly pointed to his penis when asked what his private part was. Dr. O‘Boyle conducted an examination of TM‘s anus which revealed medical conditions consistent with anal penetration, i.e. sexual abuse.
TM‘s mother, Karen Marshall, testified consistent with the testimony of her son and her mother.
Detective Lansing testified that he investigated the case. He gave a synopsis of who he got information from, including the doctor‘s reрort, and his interview of defendant. Defendant told the detective that he‘d had a few beers, but he had not touched the boy, and he didn‘t remember anything happening.
DISCUSSION
By his first assignment of error, defendant аsserts that the jury had insufficient evidence upon which to convict him. Under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the proper standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of evidence claim is whether, after viеwing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasоnable doubt. State v. Bellamy, 599 So.2d 326 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 605 So.2d 1089 (1992).
Sexual battery,
This court‘s authority to review questions of fact in a criminal case is limited to the sufficiency-of-the-evidence evaluation under Jackson v. Virginia, supra, and does not extend to credibility determinations madе by the trier of fact.
Defendant testified on his own behalf. He confirmed that he and TM watched TV on the night in quеstion and that he was on the sofa. He confirmed that Gertie went to bed in a back room, but he said at that point he went to sleep and nothing else happened. The jury chose not to believe him. The testimony of TM, corroborated by the testimony of the doctor and the observations of his mother and grandmother, are sufficient to prove the elements of the offensе of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of aggravated rape beyond a reasonable doubt. This assignment is without merit.
Defendant also argues that the sentence imposed upon him is excessive. He was sentenced to nine years at hard labor, with
The Louisiana Sentencing Guidelines are advisory to the sentencing judge. No sentence shall be declared unlawful, inadequate, or excessive solely due to the failure of the judge to impose a sentence in conformity with the sentencing guidelines.
According to State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La. 7/5/94), 639 So.2d 237, a trial judge, having properly considered the guidelines, hаs the complete discretion to reject the guidelines and impose any sentence which is not constitutionally excessive, provided the trial court states for the record the сonsiderations taken into account and the factual basis for the imposition of sentence. Where the trial judge has considered the guidelines and imposed a sentence, adequately stating for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis for imposition of that sentence, an appellate court is limited to a review of the sentence imposed for constitutional excessiveness, without regard to whether the trial judge employed or deviated from the guidelines. State v. Smith, supra; State v. Farley, 26,377 (La.App. 2d Cir. 9/21/94), 643 So.2d 300; State v. Walters, 26,647 (La.App. 2d Cir. 12/7/94), 648 So.2d 7.
Before imposing sentence, the trial court reviewed a PSI report and a sentencing guideline report. The court noted that the jury found defendant guilty of a “much lesser crime than the evidence justified.” The sentencing guidelines, based on the offense of conviction and defendant‘s lack of prior convictions, placed him in grid cell 4-G. That discretionary zone cell recommended a sentence of 18 to 36 months. However, the court said it intended to depart from that recommendation because the verdict was not truly descriptive of the actual conduct. The court said the offensе was aggravated by the youth of the victim and that the child regarded defendant as “a person of some trust and authority being his grandmother‘s erstwhile boy friend.” The court then imposed a nine-year hard labor sentence with credit for time served.
Defendant filed a timely motion for reconsideration. The court denied the motion and filed written reasons, stating that it departed upward because the verdict was not truly descriptive of defendant‘s conduct. The court again said the offense was aggravated by the youth of the victim and by the relationship of trust then existing between thе victim and the defendant.
The record shows that the trial court properly considered the sentencing guidelines and adequately stated for the record its considerations and the factual basis for the imposition of sentence. Hence, pursuant to the dictates of State v. Smith, we are limited to determining whether the sentence is constitutionally excessive.
A sentence violates
Under the statute of conviction,
State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La.1982), approved a 10-year sentence imposed on a first offender who pled guilty to sexual battеry
Thus, it appears that a nine-year sentence for sexual battery by a 49-year-old defendant on a 7-year-old child is not grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense and does not shock the sense of justice. The assignment is without merit.
We note that defendant assigned two other errors, but neither briefed nor argued them. These assignments are therefore deemed abandoned. State v. Schwartz, 354 So.2d 1332 (La.1978); URCA Rule 2-12.4; State v. Kotwitz, 549 So.2d 351 (La.App. 2d Cir.1989), writ denied, 558 So.2d 1123 (La. 1990).
We have reviewed the record for errors patent and found none. We affirm the conviction and sentence for the foregoing reasons.
AFFIRMED.