State v. Zeigler

334 So.3d 1081

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee

v.Lorenzo Zachery ZEIGLER, Appellant

No. 54,217-KA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered March 9, 2022.

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, By: Edward K. Bauman, Lake Charles, Counsel for Appellant

ROBERT STEPHEN TEW, District Attorney, DARWIN CLAYTON MILLER, RICKY D SMITH, Assistant District Attorneys, Counsel for Appellee

Before STONE, COX, and STEPHENS, JJ.

STONE, J.

This criminal appeal comes to us from the Fourth Judicial District Court, the Honorable Judge Larry D. Jefferson presiding. Lorenzo Zachery Zeigler ("Zeigler"), was charged with second degree murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. Zeigler elected to have a bench trial and was found guilty of manslaughter, in violation of La. R.S. 14:31. He was subsequently sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment at hard labor with credit for time served.

He now appeals his conviction and sentence.

FACTS

In April 2016, Zeigler, his sister Katherine Zeigler ("Katherine"), and Katherine's fiancé, Mario Wiley ("Wiley"), resided in a family home left to Zeigler and Katherine by their mother upon her death. Other residents of the home included Katherine's two young children and Quenterius Foster ("Foster"), a nephew of Zeigler and Katherine.

On the evening of April 10, 2016, Zeigler, age 54, shot and killed Wiley, age 26, in the backyard of the family home. Earlier that day, Zeigler left the residence in his vehicle. An unspecified time later, Katherine, her children, Foster, and Katherine's friend, Kaci Maza ("Maza"), left and went to the store. Wiley remained in the home with Chris Jarrell ("Jarrell"), who was giving him a tattoo when Zeigler returned home. It is undisputed that upon his return to the house, Zeigler ordered Wiley and Jarrell¹ to leave the premises because of the odor from the tattoo process. A verbal exchange ensued between Zeigler and Wiley, and Wiley escalated it to a physical altercation. Wiley struck Zeigler multiple times in the face and head causing him to bleed heavily onto his shirt.

While the beating was ongoing, Katherine, her two young children, Foster, and Maza returned from the store. Katherine entered the residence to find Zeigler on the closet floor with his head slumped over, while Wiley repeatedly punched him. Katherine and Foster intervened, stopping the physical assault. Katherine took Wiley outside, and Foster helped Zeigler to his feet. Minutes later, Zeigler came outside armed with a shotgun and aimed it at Wiley. Katherine and Foster pleaded with Zeigler to put the shotgun down, and he lowered the weapon.² Wiley unexpectedly pushed Katherine to the ground, whereupon Zeigler shot Wiley in the chest. Wiley fell to the ground, and Zeigler went back into the house, while Katherine called the police and attempted to render aid. When law enforcement officers arrived, Zeigler was taken into custody and later arrested.

At trial, the State called a total of 6 witnesses, including Katherine, Foster, and Maza. The autopsy report was introduced into evidence, and it showed that Wiley's cause of death was a single gunshot wound to the chest. The abrasions and contusions observed on his hands and wrists were consistent with a physical altercation. The toxicology report showed that Wiley tested positive for amphetamines , methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana. Katherine testified that Wiley had been prescribed Seroquel because he was bipolar, but had not taken the it for 9 months.

At the conclusion of the trial, Zeigler was found guilty of manslaughter. On November 7, 2019, he was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment at hard labor with credit for time served. On November 13, 2019, he filed a motion to reconsider sentence and a motion for appeal. On September 28, 2020, the trial court denied the motion to reconsider sentence and granted the motion for appeal.

Zeigler appeals his conviction and sentence, asserting the following assignments of error: (1) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence when it failed to adequately consider mitigating factors including his age and health and (2) the trial court imposed an unconstitutionally excessive sentence.

DISCUSSION

Zeigler argues that the sentence of 25 years is an excessive sentence because the trial court considered only 3 of the 33 sentencing factors enumerated in La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1. The state argues that Zeigler benefited because the trial court found him guilty of manslaughter rather than second degree murder and imposed a midrange sentence. It contends that the trial court detailed its reasoning, including the analysis of the applicability of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances enumerated in La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1

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 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. West , 53,526 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/24/20), 297 So. 3d 1081 ; State v. Sandifer , 53,276 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/15/20), 289 So. 3d 212 ; 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. 894.11, 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. Lee , 53,461 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/22/20), 293 So. 3d 1270, writ denied , 20-00582 (La. 10/14/20), 302 So. 3d 1113 ; State v. Payne , 52,310 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/16/19), 262 So. 3d 498 ; State v. DeBerry , 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. DeBerry , supra . The trial court is not required to assign any particular weight to any specific matters at sentencing. 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.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court complied with La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1. It reviewed the PSI, the facts of the case, and the victim impact statements. While the trial court did not provide a detailed analysis of the statutory sentencing guidelines, it clearly articulated a factual basis for the sentence imposed. The trial court found that the offense resulted in a significant permanent injury to the victim and his family; Zeigler used a dangerous weapon; Zeigler acted under strong provocation; and Wiley provoked Zeigler's conduct by beating him severely.³ The judge also noted that Zeigler has a present drug charge pending. Although we disagree with the trial court's conclusion, we find that there was adequate compliance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 to allow this court to determine whether the sentence is too severe given the circumstances of the case and the background of the defendant.

Unconstitutional Excessiveness: Gross Disproportionality

As to the excessiveness, Zeigler argues that the 25-year sentence is unconstitutionally excessive because the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors including his age and health. Zeigler contends that the pre-sentence investigation report ("PSI") did not address his health concerns. Moreover, his medical history shows that Zeigler has one lung, diabetes, high blood pressure, and kidney issues. Zeigler emphasizes that he was 54 years old when the incident occurred and is a first-time felony offender. The state argues that the trial court did take the age difference between Zeigler and Wiley into consideration.

La. R.S. 14:31(B) provides, in pertinent part, that a person found guilty of manslaughter "[s]hall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than forty years."

Even if a sentence is within statutory limits, it can be vacated for constitutional excessiveness. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So. 2d 762 (La. 1979) ; State v. Smith , 839 So. 2d 1 (La. 2003). 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. West , 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 sentencing 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 ; 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. The trial court 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. Cook , 95-2784 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So. 2d 957, cert. denied , 519 U.S. 1043, 117 S. Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed. 2d 539 (1996) ; State v. West , supra ; State v. Valadez , 52,162 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/15/18), 251 So. 3d 1273 ; State v. Jackson , 51,575 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/17), 244 So. 3d 764 ; State v. Allen , ...