State v. Aguliar-Benitez
Decision Date | 30 December 2020 |
Docket Number | NO. 20-KA-32,20-KA-32 |
Citation | 308 So.3d 1259 |
Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Noe A. AGULIAR-BENITEZ aka Noe Aguilar-Benitez |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr., Thomas J. Butler, Gail D. Schlosser, Angad Ghai, Marko Marjanovic
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, NOE A. AGULIAR-BENITEZ AKA NOE AGUILAR-BENITEZ Gwendolyn K. Brown
Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Robert A. Chaisson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
Defendant, Noe A. Aguliar-Benitez a/k/a Noe Aguilar-Benitez, appeals for the third time, asserting that his newly imposed sentences, which resulted after a remand from this Court for resentencing, are unconstitutionally excessive. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the forty-year sentence imposed on defendant for his conviction for attempted aggravated rape; however, we vacate, as unconstitutionally excessive, the seventy-five-year sentence imposed on defendant for his conviction for sexual battery of a victim under the age of thirteen and remand the matter for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
On November 10, 2015, a unanimous twelve-person jury convicted defendant of attempted aggravated rape,1 in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:42 (count one), and sexual battery of a victim under the age of thirteen, in violation of La. R.S. 14:43.1 (count two). On December 10, 2015, after considering the victim impact statement and the arguments of the prosecutor and defense counsel, the trial court sentenced defendant to the statutory maximum on each conviction. Specifically, the trial court sentenced defendant to fifty years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for his conviction for attempted aggravated rape2 and to ninety-nine years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for his conviction for sexual battery of a victim under the age of thirteen.3 In imposing the maximum sentences, the trial court stated, in part, as follows:
This Court will note as is reflected in the victim impact statement given by the mother, the victim, that this family took Mr. Aguliar-Benitez into their home out of the kindness of their heart, gave him a place to stay when he had no place to stay. He, in this Court's opinion, committed the ultimate sin against them in stealing the innocence of this young child who no one who saw or heard the testimony of couldn't have been moved by. And this Court believes that any lesser sentence for Mr. Aguliar-Benitez on these charges would defricate [sic] the seriousness of the offense committed by him against this defenseless victim.
Defense counsel objected and filed a motion to reconsider sentence. At the subsequent hearing on that motion, defense counsel argued that the maximum sentences were excessive and pointed out that defendant did not engage in a systematic pattern of repeated abuse, that there was no evidence he had ever engaged in any behavior like this before, and that the jury came back with a lesser responsive verdict, apparently because they did not believe that there was evidence of penetration. In response, the prosecutor argued that the sentences were not excessive and reminded the trial judge of both the Children's Advocacy Center tape and the juvenile victim's testimony. After hearing arguments of counsel, the trial judge denied the motion, noting:
Defendant thereafter appealed. In his first appeal, this Court found that the trial court erred by failing to dispose of defendant's motion for new trial before sentencing and, accordingly, vacated defendant's sentences and remanded the matter to the trial court for a ruling on defendant's motion for new trial. State v. Aguliar-Benitez , 16-336 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/7/16), 206 So.3d 472. Pursuant to this Court's remand, the trial court, on January 26, 2017, denied defendant's motion for new trial. Thereafter, on February 23, 2017, the trial court sentenced defendant to fifty years imprisonment at hard labor for his attempted aggravated rape conviction and to ninety-nine years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for his sexual battery conviction, to be served concurrently. In imposing these maximum sentences, the trial judge noted that he took into account the victim impact statement that was previously read into the record and then stated in pertinent part:
Defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence on February 24, 2017. At the subsequent hearing on the motion, defense counsel asked the trial judge for mercy for defendant and to sentence him to a lower sentence than the one imposed previously. Defense counsel pointed out that defendant accepted responsibility from the beginning, that the jury found there was no penetration or that type of contact, that defendant had "no priors," and that the maximum end of the sentencing range was reserved for extreme cases. In response, the prosecutor noted that the trial judge heard the facts of this case, particularly the testimony of the victim on her birthday, and that defendant had the opportunity to plea to forty-five years and had declined that offer. Defense counsel explained that defendant would have accepted the plea, but he objected to the trial judge's requirement of castration. The trial judge agreed that he would have required defendant to undergo chemical castration in exchange for a forty-five-year sentence. He also stated in pertinent part:
At trial, this Court had the opportunity to listen to the testimony of the child victim as well as that child's family testify. And it became abundantly clear that Mr. Benitez not only did he sexually molest and abuse a child under the age of 13 but he took full advantage of that child's family who had seemed fit out of the goodness of their heart to open their home to Mr. Benitez and give him a place to live as he didn't have a place of his own. So the fact that he violated the family's trust and violated this young girl, who this Court sat and heard and watch [sic] testify in this court, in addition to the fact that Mr. Benitez himself turned down the plea offer to the 45 years and chemical castration, based on all of that, this Court did in fact sentence Mr. Benitez the way it did because this Court said to sentence Mr. Benitez to anything less would be to denigrate the seriousness of this offense. This Court remains firmly convinced of that and therefore, denies the motion to reconsider sentence.
Defendant thereafter appealed and argued, as one of his assignments of error, the excessiveness of the imposed sentences. This Court, after a thorough discussion of the relevant factors, agreed with defendant's arguments that his sentences were excessive. As such, this Court vacated defendant's sentence for attempted aggravated rape, remanded the matter for resentencing, and suggested a sentencing range of thirty-five to forty years. This Court also vacated defendant's sentence for sexual battery of a victim under thirteen, remanded the matter for resentencing, and suggested a sentencing range of thirty-five to fifty-five years, with both sentences to run concurrently. State v. Aguliar-Benitez , 17-361 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/10/18), 260 So.3d 1247, writ denied , 19-147 (La. 6/3/19), 272 So.3d 543.
On September 19, 2019, on remand, defendant appeared for resentencing. Defense counsel asked for mercy as defendant was "paying severely," had shown remorse, cooperated, and never denied anything. Further, defense counsel asserted that defendant's behavior was a one-time incident and not a repeated or long term pattern of abuse that was consistent with maximum sentences. Defense counsel also pointed out that this Court had stated that defendant showed remorse during his interview and had found that defendant's crimes did not warrant sentences on the higher end of the sentencing ranges because he had no prior convictions. After considering counsel's argument, the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Alexander
-
State v. Aguliar-Benitez
...court failed to offer a compelling reason for exceeding the sentencing range it previously suggested. State v. Aguliar-Benitez , 20-32 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/30/20), 308 So.3d 1259.We granted the State's application to determine whether the trial court, after the second remand, abused its disc......