State v. Meadows

293 So.3d 681

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee

v.Billy R. MEADOWS, Jr., Appellant

No. 53,329-KA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered March 4, 2020

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, By: Carey J. Ellis, III, Counsel for Appellant

JOHN MCINTOSH LANCASTER, District Attorney, CAROLINE HEMPHILL, AMANDA MICHELE WILKINS, Assistant District Attorneys, Counsel for Appellee

Before STONE, COX, and McCALLUM, JJ.

COX, J.

This criminal appeal arises from the Fifth Judicial District Court, Richland Parish, Louisiana. The defendant, Billy R. Meadows, Jr., was initially charged with second degree murder. After a plea agreement, Meadows pled guilty to second degree cruelty to juveniles, in violation of La. R.S. 14:93.2.3. The district court sentenced Meadows to 40 years at hard labor. After an appeal, this Court affirmed both his conviction and sentence. The district court then adjudicated Meadows a fourth-felony habitual offender and sentenced him to the statutorily mandated sentence of life imprisonment without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentenced. Meadows then appealed his sentence. This Court determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Meadows' offense of attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon fell within the 10-year cleansing period for Meadows' prior felonies. The adjudication was reversed, the sentence was vacated, and the matter was remanded to the trial court. Meadows was again adjudicated a fourth-felony habitual offender and sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Meadows now appeals the excessiveness of his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm Meadows' sentence.

FACTS

The facts and procedural history have been adopted from State v. Meadows , 51,843 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/18), 246 So. 3d 639, writ denied , 2018-0259 (La. 10/29/18), 254 So. 3d 1208.

On July 21, 2015, the defendant's girlfriend left her young son in the defendant's care while she went to work. Several hours later, the defendant called and told her to return to the home they shared due to an emergency. She found the child cool to the touch, with blue lips and his eyes rolled back. She called 911, and the child was transported to the emergency room where he was pronounced dead. The child's stomach appeared swollen, and he had "visual bruises" on his body. Further examination revealed a discharge from his anal cavity. Upon further examination of the child's anus, the doctor found evidence of sexual molestation. The defendant later gave differing versions to law enforcement officers of what transpired after the child's mother left for work. These included accounts wherein the child fell off a "pot" (apparently a commode or potty chair) or down the stairs, and that he had left the child alone in the residence only to return and find him unconscious under a coffee table. Thinking that the child was asleep, the defendant admitted kicking him. The defendant also provided inconsistent accounts of hitting the child with a belt in his genital area.

On August 10, 2015, the defendant was charged by grand jury indictment with the second degree murder of the child, during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of cruelty to juveniles. On January 10, 2017, he pled guilty to the crime of second degree cruelty to juveniles in exchange for the dismissal of a misdemeanor charge of simple criminal damage to property. The state also agreed that the sentence would run concurrent with any other sentence previously imposed and that the defendant would be allowed credit for time served from the date of his arrest. Because of the sensitive nature of the crime, the state and the defense agreed to offer the investigative case report as the factual basis for the plea. That report outlined in great detail the facts recited above. After accepting the plea, the trial court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) report.

On March 7, 2017, the defendant received the maximum sentence for second degree cruelty to juveniles, 40 years at hard labor. The trial court ordered that the sentence be concurrent with any other sentence, with credit for time served. Prior to imposing sentence, the trial court fully considered the contents of the PSI report, which had been reviewed by both the state and the defense. The trial court reviewed the facts of the matter, as well as the 34–year–old defendant's personal and educational history, noting that he dropped out of school in the ninth grade at age 16, was incarcerated at about age 18, and worked odd jobs. The defendant had four small children with three different women, but had never been married.

The trial court considered statements from the child's mother, expressing the anger and mental suffering she endured because of the loss of her child, and from the child's grandmother, requesting justice for her grandson. It also took under advisement statements from several law enforcement officers, who requested the maximum sentence due to the severity of the crime.

The trial court reviewed the defendant's criminal history, noting that he had no juvenile record, but was a fourth-felony offender. The defendant's felony criminal history included a September 2000 conviction for simple burglary, for which he originally received a suspended six-year sentence; however, his probation was revoked. He also had convictions in November 2001 for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and simple burglary, for which he received concurrent sentences of 10 years at hard labor. Regarding these offenses, the trial court noted that the defendant was originally charged with aggravated burglary, a crime of violence, after he broke into a residence and stole money and guns. The defendant had a 2013 conviction for attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and received a five-year hard labor sentence. The trial court also considered three misdemeanor convictions in 2011 and 2012.

The trial court considered the defendant's failure to complete probation or parole at any time due to his continued commission of crimes, noting that he was on parole at the time of the present offense.

The trial court reviewed La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, and in mitigation, considered the defendant's age, lack of prior convictions involving juveniles, and enrollment in a substance abuse program and a Bible ministry study. It also considered the defendant's children; however, it noted that there was no evidence that he paid them any support. The trial court also reviewed statements by the defendant's mother and sister, who requested leniency in sentencing, and a letter and petition submitted on behalf of the defendant by a family member, which had 100 names listed on it.

As aggravating factors, the trial court noted the defendant's criminal history. The trial court considered that the defendant received a substantial benefit from the plea agreement, which reduced the charge from second degree murder to second degree cruelty to juveniles. The court observed that the defendant never worked regularly or contributed to society and concluded that his conduct manifested deliberate cruelty to a two-year-old vulnerable child who was incapable of resistance. The court classified the offense as a heinous crime, reciting the injuries inflicted upon the child. They included blunt force trauma to the child's head, tears to his colon and anal area, and internal bleeding and internal injuries as a result of an object in the child's anal area. The trial court observed that the instant offense was "one of the worst" crimes it had ever seen, and it considered the pain the child must have suffered. The court also recognized the psychological damage caused to the mother, who could not eat or sleep and was in constant mental pain since the death of her child.

The trial court concluded that the defendant was in need of correctional treatment in a custodial environment that could be provided effectively by his commitment to an institution, that he would commit another crime if not incarcerated, and that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the offense. Ultimately, the trial court determined that the defendant deserved the maximum sentence of 40 years at hard labor.

The defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence arguing that the trial court failed to give sufficient weight to the fact that he had no prior convictions involving juveniles or crimes of violence, had voluntarily enrolled in substance abuse treatment and various Bible study programs, and expressed remorse for what happened to the victim. At the hearing on the motion to reconsider sentence, the defendant also argued that the trial court failed to give sufficient weight to his employment, his attempt to get a GED, and the list of individuals who supported him. He further requested that the trial court give no weight to any allegations by individuals that were not supported by the autopsy report. The trial court stated that it had already considered all of the above-noted facts in sentencing. Finding that the defendant's "horrible crime" which resulted in the death of the two-year old victim warranted the maximum sentence, it denied the motion to reconsider sentence.

On March 15, 2017, the State filed a habitual offender bill of information against Meadows alleging the following seven felony convictions:

• September 27, 2000, 2000–427F, Fifth JDC, Franklin Parish, Louisiana: Simple Burglary;

• September 27, 2000, 2000–426F, Fifth JDC, Franklin Parish, Louisiana: Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle;

• November 3, 2000, 2000–540F, Fifth JDC, Franklin Parish, Louisiana: Simple Burglary;

• November 30, 2001, 2001–79F, Fifth JDC, Franklin Parish, Louisiana: Simple Burglary;

• November 30, 2001, 2001–801F, Fifth JDC, Franklin Parish, Louisiana: Possession of Firearm by a Convicted Felon;

• January 29, 2013, 2012–591F, Fifth JDC, Franklin Parish, Louisiana: Attempted Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon;

...