State v. Parker

335 So.3d 519

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee

v.Samuel Caleb PARKER, Appellant

No. 54,190-KA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered March 9, 2022.

ROBERT S. NOEL, II, Monroe, Counsel for Appellant

ROBERT STEPHEN TEW, District Attorney, CHARLOTTE FARSHIAN, MICHAEL J. FONTENOT, Assistant District Attorneys, Counsel for Appellee

Before THOMPSON, ROBINSON, and O'CALLAGHAN (Pro Tempore), JJ.

O'CALLAGHAN, J. (Pro Tempore)

The defendant, Samuel Caleb Parker, was originally charged with second degree murder and pled guilty to manslaughter. He was sentenced to serve 36 years at hard labor. He appeals his sentence as excessive. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

FACTS

This offense involves the tragic shooting by 22-year-old Parker of Joseph Morris, who was also 22 years old. They were longtime friends. The shooting occurred in the parking lot of a convenience store after a night of drinking. Parker, the son of two osteopaths in Monroe, had a substance abuse problem. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor DWI in June 2017, and was sentenced to serve two years’ probation. He failed to show up for meetings with his probation officer or fulfill any conditions of probation. Two separate bench warrants were issued for failure to appear in court. These were still active at the time of the present offense.

Parker had undergone substance abuse treatment for three months at Capstone Trauma Recovery Treatment Center in Arkansas and three months at The Carpenter Shed in West Monroe. He completed treatment shortly before the present offense. Nonetheless, on July 10, 2019, Parker went out drinking with Morris and two women, 19-year old Jamie Lowry and 20-year-old Cierra Cato. They took Parker's pickup truck to Enoch's Pub in Monroe. Parker was armed with a Taurus 9 mm handgun and Morris had a .40 caliber Glock. Parker became intoxicated and agitated. He thought someone in the parking lot at Enoch's looked at him "the wrong way." He got his gun and was going to "show him." Morris and the women persuaded Parker to leave the man alone.

The four left Enoch's in Parker's truck. Because Parker was extremely intoxicated, Morris drove. They went to a convenience store. On the way, Parker again became agitated, this time over the use of the GPS in the vehicle. Upon arrival at the store, Morris, Lowry, and Cato went inside, while Parker remained in the truck. The women went to the restroom and Morris could be seen on the store surveillance video talking with the store clerk. Morris returned to the vehicle while the women were still in the store and entered the driver's side of the vehicle. Video surveillance from the store shows Parker, seated in the front passenger seat, moving his arms in an agitated manner. He reached across the front seat toward Morris's head. The women returned to the truck and discovered that Morris had been shot in the head. Parker was holding his gun and refused to put it down. A witness in the parking lot told officers that, after the shooting was discovered, he saw Parker holding a gun in his right hand, his eyes were wide open, and he was looking around like he was trying to decide what to do.

After police and an ambulance arrived, Morris was pronounced dead at the scene. Police found Parker in the passenger side of the truck sitting on his Taurus gun. The gun had blood on the barrel. He told police, "That don't mean I did it." One live round and one spent 9 mm shell casing were found on the passenger floorboard. A gunshot residue test was performed on Parker; the test was positive.

Initially, Parker told police that he went into the store and, when he came back to the vehicle, Morris was dead. Morris's Glock was in his lap. It was later determined that Morris's gun had not been fired. Parker attempted to make the shooting look like Morris had committed suicide. Video showed that Parker never left the vehicle and he later admitted that he lied about how the offense occurred. Parker claimed he did not have a clear memory of what happened at the time of the shooting and he never explained why he shot his friend.

On September 19, 2019, Parker was charged by grand jury indictment with the second degree murder of Morris. Parker was represented by retained counsel. He was released on $500,000 bond.

On September 10, 2020, Parker withdrew his plea of not guilty to second degree murder and entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter. Parker was properly Boykinized and informed of the maximum sentence for manslaughter. The state presented the factual basis for the plea and the court noted that no sentence had been agreed upon. Parker stated he was, in fact, guilty of manslaughter. The trial court accepted the guilty plea and ordered a presentence investigation ("PSI") report. Parker was allowed to remain free on bond pending sentencing, but was ordered to wear an ankle monitor.

Parker appeared before the trial court for sentencing on February 2, 2021. The court ordered that Parker serve 36 years at hard labor, be enrolled in any and all drug rehabilitations programs available, receive counseling for anger management, and undergo job skills training. He was given credit for time served. The trial court properly informed Parker of the time limits for exercising his right to post conviction relief. Parker also signed a form acknowledging that he had been apprised of those time limits.

On February 23, 2021, Parker filed a motion to reconsider sentence. He argued that his sentence of 36 years at hard labor was excessive considering the particulars of this offense. Parker asked the court to reconsider the sentence in light of his extensive rehabilitation treatment, undertaken after making bond in this case. He urged this was an effort to eliminate his substance abuse, which was one of the causes of the offense. Parker argued that the court should reconsider that, when comparing this offense to others of this nature, he is not a "worst offender." He argued there is little likelihood that he will commit another offense. He asserted that a sentence of 36 years at hard labor for a first felony offender is excessive and the court should consider his youth. The motion was denied by the trial court on March 1, 2021.

EXCESSIVE SENTENCE

Parker appealed, arguing that his sentence was unconstitutionally harsh and excessive given the facts and circumstances of the case. This argument is without merit.

Legal Principles

An appellate court utilizes a two-pronged test in reviewing a sentence for excessiveness. First, the record must show that the trial court took cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The court shall state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor in imposing sentence. La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1(C) ; State v. Wilson , 53,913 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/26/21), 317 So. 3d 923. The trial judge is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating circumstance so long as the record reflects that he adequately considered the guidelines of the article. State v. Smith , 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983) ; State v. Dungan , 54,031 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/22/21), 327 So. 3d 634, writ denied , 21-01679 (La. 1/26/22), 332 So.3d 82 ; State v. DeBerry , 50,501 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/13/16), 194 So. 3d 657, writ denied , 16-0959 (La. 5/1/17), 219 So. 3d 332.

The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions. Where the record clearly shows an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed, remand is unnecessary even where there has not been full compliance with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State v. Lanclos , 419 So. 2d 475 (La. 1982) ; State v. Dungan , supra . The important elements which should be considered are the defendant's personal history (age, family ties, marital status, health, employment record), prior criminal record, seriousness of the offense, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones , 398 So. 2d 1049 (La. 1981) ; State v. Dungan, supra . The trial court is not required to assign any particular weight to any specific matters at sentencing. State v. Dungan , supra ; State v. Parfait , 52,857 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19), 278 So. 3d 455, writ denied , 19-01659 (La. 12/10/19), 285 So. 3d 489.

Second, the court must determine whether the sentence is constitutionally excessive. A sentence violates La. Const. art. I, § 20, if it is grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense or nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. Dorthey , 623 So. 2d 1276 (La. 1993) ; State v. Bonanno , 384 So. 2d 355 (La. 1980). A sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are viewed in light of the harm done to society, it shocks the sense of justice. State v. Weaver , 01-0467 (La. 1/15/02), 805 So. 2d 166 ; State v. Dungan , supra ; State v. Meadows , 51,843 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/18), 246 So. 3d 639, writ denied , 18-0259 (La. 10/29/18), 254 So. 3d 1208.

The trial court has wide discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory limits, and the sentence imposed will not be set aside as excessive absent a manifest abuse of that discretion. State v. Williams , 03-3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So. 2d 7. A trial judge is in the best position to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a particular case, and, therefore, is given broad discretion in sentencing. State v. Allen , 49,642 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/26/15), 162 So. 3d 519, writ denied , 15-0608 (La. 1/25/16), 184 So. 3d 1289. On review, an appellate court does not determine whether another sentence may have been more appropriate, but whether the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Williams , 893 So. 2d at p. 14 ; State v. Adams , 53,055 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/20/19), 285 So. 3d 526, writ denied , 20-00056 (La. 9/8/20), 301 So. 3d 15.

As a general rule, maximum or near maximum sentences are reserved for the worst...