State v. Sanders

335 So.3d 527

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee

v.Christopher T. SANDERS, Appellant

No. 54,261-KA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered March 9, 2022.

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, By: Holli Ann Herrle-Castillo, Counsel for Appellant

JAMES E. STEWART, SR., District Attorney, ROSS S. OWEN, SENAE D. HALL, TOMMY J. JOHNSON, Assistant District Attorneys, Counsel for Appellee

Before MOORE, STEPHENS, and THOMPSON, JJ.

THOMPSON, J.

This appeal of the length of a sentence for armed robbery arises from an employee, during an armed robbery of his place of employment, holding a coworker at gunpoint, terrorizing her, and repeatedly threatening to kill her while he stole money from their workplace. The entire incident was captured on the store's surveillance cameras. The jury unanimously convicted him of armed robbery, and he was sentenced by the trial court to a midrange sentence of 45 years out of the possible 10 to 99-year sentencing range on the armed robbery charge and a consecutive 5-year sentence enhancement for use of a firearm in the commission of his crime. For the following reasons, we affirm his sentences.

FACTS

On the morning of September 29, 2018, Bobbie Parsons ("Parsons") arrived at the Big Lots store located in Shreveport, Louisiana where she worked as a store manager. The defendant, Christopher T. Sanders ("Sanders"), who was an employee of the store at the time, was already at the store. Parsons later testified that she incorrectly believed Sanders was scheduled to work that day, so his appearance at the store that morning was not unusual. Parsons had not worked the day before and did not realize that Sanders was actually not scheduled to work the day of the incident. Sanders had worked at the Big Lots for approximately three months prior to this incident.

That morning, Parsons opened the store, and she and Sanders entered together. Parsons clocked in, put her purse away, and moved to the front of the store. Sanders, who was behind her, called Parsons's name, and when she turned around, he was pointing a handgun directly at her. Sanders took her phone away and told her to go into the office. Parsons complied with all of Sanders's demands.

Once in the office, Sanders told Parsons to enter the code to unlock the office or he would kill her. Parsons turned off the alarm, unlocked the door, and opened the safe holding the store's money for the day. Sanders told her to give him all of the money. Parsons testified that there was a $2,500 safe balance, as well as other deposits that she believed totaled approximately $2,000 each. Sanders was holding and pointing the handgun at Parsons the entire time. Parsons testified that after Sanders had the money, he told her to stay in the office or he would kill her. Before leaving, Sanders disabled the phone in the office to prevent Parsons from calling for assistance. Sanders then left the store.

Parsons tried to reassemble the phone so she could call for help but was not able to do so. She looked in the other offices, for fear Sanders would make good on the threats to kill her, and when she did not see him, she went into another office and used the phone to call the police. The entire incident was captured by the store's surveillance cameras. When the police arrived, Parsons identified Sanders as the perpetrator, and she also later identified him in a police lineup.

Sanders was arrested and charged with armed robbery and an additional penalty for the use of a firearm in the commission of the crime. A jury trial was held, and Sanders was unanimously convicted of both counts. The trial court sentenced Sanders to 45 years at hard labor without benefits on the armed robbery count and five years at hard labor on the enhancement charge for use of a firearm during the commission of the robbery. The two sentences were ordered to run consecutively. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Assignment of Error: The 45-year sentence imposed is excessive.

In his only assignment of error, Sanders argues that his 45-year sentence is excessive. He argues that the trial court failed to give adequate consideration for the mitigating factors in this case and that the sentence is out of proportion based on the facts of the case.

Generally, appellate courts apply a two-pronged test when reviewing a sentence for excessiveness. State v. Cooksey , 53,660 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/26/21), 316 So. 3d 1284, writ denied , 21-00901 (La. 10/12/21), 325 So. 3d 1074. First, the court must determine whether the trial court adequately considered the sentencing guidelines established in La. C. Cr. art. 894.1. The trial judge is not required to list every aggravating and mitigating circumstance so long as the record reveals that he adequately considered the guidelines of the article. State v. Gardner , 46,688 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/2/11), 77 So. 3d 1052. Important elements that should be considered include the defendant's personal history (age, family ties, marital status, health, and employment record), his criminal history, the seriousness of the offense, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones , 398 So. 2d 1049 (La. 1981) ; Gardner, supra .

Second, a sentence is constitutionally excessive 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) ; Gardner, supra . 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. Gardner, supra . The trial court has wide discretion is imposing sentence within the minimum and maximum limits allowed by the statute, and a sentence will not be set aside as excessive unless the defendant shows the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Reese , 49,849 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/15), 166 So. 3d 1175, writ denied , 15-1236 (La. 6/3/16), 192 So. 3d 760.

The Louisiana legislature has established the penalty for the offense of armed robbery as imprisonment at hard labor for not less than ten years and not more than 99 years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. La. R.S. 14:64(B). At the sentencing hearing in this matter, the trial court heard that Sanders had completed anger management and substance abuse programs while incarcerated pending trial and sentencing. Sanders's attorney also informed the court that he has a family, including two daughters and four sons, a sister, two nephews and a niece, and an 87-year-old father. Sanders accepted responsibility for his actions and asked the court to consider the above facts when imposing the sentence.

The trial court stated that it considered the nature of the charge and the testimony at trial in addition to the likelihood that Sanders would commit the crime again. It considered Sanders's criminal history, which the trial court described as extensive and which included felony charges. The court noted that Sanders had other pending violent charges, including a number of armed robberies and battery of a police officer. The trial court stated that it would consider the fact that Sanders attempted to rehabilitate himself "somewhat." However, based on the totality of the circumstances, the trial court imposed the midrange sentence of 45 years for armed robbery and 5 year sentence for the firearm enhancement, with the sentences to be served consecutively as required by law, with credit given for time served.

Although Sanders argues that the trial court did not take account of mitigating...