State v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 07 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–373.,12–373. |
| Citation | 101 So.3d 580 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Ricky W. COLEMAN. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jesse Phillip Terrell, Jr., Pineville, LA, for Defendant/Appellant, Ricky W. Coleman.
J. Reed Walters, District Attorney, 28th Judicial District Court, Steven P. Kendrick, Assistant District Attorney, 28th Judicial District Court, Jena, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee, State of Louisiana.
Court composed of ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, SYLVIA R. COOKS, and ELIZABETH A. PICKETT, Judges.
[3 Cir. 1]After pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, Defendant Ricky Coleman was sentenced to six years in prison. The trial court ordered the sentence to run consecutively to a five-year sentence Defendant received for pleading guilty to another drug-related charge. Defendant appeals and argues that the sentence is excessive and that the sentences should be concurrent, rather than consecutive. For the following reasons, we affirm.
We must decide whether:
(1) the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence on Defendant;
(2) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences on Defendant.
Defendant Ricky Coleman sold both marijuana and hydrocodone to an undercover female police officer. The sales took place on two different occasions and at different locations. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, a violation of La.R.S. 40:966(A). During that same court appearance, Defendant also pleaded guilty to distribution of hydrocodone. The two cases were not consolidated. The district court sentenced Defendant to six years at hard labor for the marijuana conviction and five years for the other conviction, distribution of hydrocodone, with the sentences to run consecutively. Defendant appeals both sentences under separate docket numbers. He argues that the six-year sentence is excessive and that the trial judge should have imposed concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences.
[3 Cir. 2]III.
The trial court may impose, at its discretion, any appropriate sentence within the statutory guidelines. That sentence is subject to review, however, for violations of a defendant's constitutional right against excessive punishment. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La.1/29/79). A sentence is excessive if “it is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime or if it is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering.” State v. Bonanno, 384 So.2d 355, 357 (La.5/19/80). The pertinent standard is whether the trial court abused its broad discretionary powers, not whether a different sentence might have been more appropriate. 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). 1
Defendant asserts that the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. We disagree. The sentencing range for a first conviction of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is five to thirty years. La.R.S. 40:966(B)(3). In reviewing a judge's exercise of sentencing discretion, an appellate court should consider three factors: (1) the nature of the crime; (2) the nature and background of the offender; and (3) the sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and other courts. State v. Guilbeau, 11–07 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/22/11), 71 So.3d 1010 (citing State v. Lisotta, 98–648 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98), 726 So.2d 57,writ denied,99–0433 (La.6/25/99), 745 So.2d 1183).
[3 Cir. 3]At the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted the reasons for its sentencing decision:
“Mr. Coleman[,] [you] are a first time felony offender with very limited criminal record prior to the instant charges. Although I am informed that you have worked your whole life, no information was provided to me as giving your current employment or method of income. The record does indicate that ... you can operate in the world without resorting to criminal activity.... [T]he charges you have admitted to are worthy of punishment and not just a slap on the wrist.... As a result of the nature of the crimes that you were involved in, I believe that there is an undue risk that you would commit another crime if I ordered you to serve a suspended or probated sentence.... You made the very telling statement to me, “The woman that caused you to do this”.
Thus, the court addressed the nature of the offense and the nature and background of the offender. Despite Defendant's lack of a criminal background, the crimes reveal his willingness to participate in the drug trade in LaSalle Parish, his inability to accept responsibility for his actions, and that treatment as an alternative to [3 Cir. 4]incarceration would not be effective since Defendant does not appear to have a drug abuse problem.
As he did before the trial court, Defendant, a fifty year-old man, claims to have neck and back problems. In State v. Langlinais, 09–422 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/16/09), 27 So.3d 1011,writ denied,10–176 (La.1/7/11), 52 So.3d 882, however, this court approved a five-year term and a ten-year term with five years suspended for a defendant with similar medical difficulties who was more than fifty years old. The defendant in that case pleaded no contest to charges of possession of the prescription drug Lortab and crack cocaine with intent to distribute. Id.
Regarding sentences imposed for similar crimes, the first circuit in State v. Wilkinson, 99–803 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/18/00), 754 So.2d 301,writ denied,00–2336 (La.4/20/01), 790 So.2d 631, held that a seven-year sentence and $1,000 fine were not excessive for the offense of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, despite the defendant's first-felony offender status.2 In State v. Gladney, 29,791 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/24/97), 700 So.2d 575, the second circuit held that a ten-year sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute was not excessive, even though the defendant was a first felony offender. Similarly, in State v. Allen, 28,988 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/30/96), 682 So.2d 864, the court approved a five-year sentence for attempted possession of marijuana with intent to distribute for a first felony offender, as there were indications the defendant was a willing participant in ongoing drug trafficking.
Although Defendant is a first felony offender, his sentence was very nearly the minimum, and his exposure was thirty years. Defendant's plea also [3 Cir. 5]included a reduction of one of the charges and the dismissal of another. 3 Further, the cases cited in the previous paragraph indicate the term he received falls within the norms of Louisiana jurisprudence.
A portion of Defendant's argument addresses the sentencing guidelines listed in La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1. In seven of those factors, he implies he was lured to sell drugs by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Darrell Dontrell Fort
...for the instant offense to run consecutively to the sentence imposed as a result of the probation violation. See State v. Coleman, 12-373(La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/12), 101 So.3d 580, writ denied, 12-2649 (La. 5/17/13), 117 So.3d 510.DECREE: Defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed. AFFIR......
- State v. Perry
-
State v. Coleman
...of Louisianav.Ricky W. COLEMAN.No. 2012–K–2649.Supreme Court of Louisiana.May 17, 2013. OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Prior report: La.App., 101 So.3d 580. In re Coleman, Ricky W.;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lasalle, 28th Judicial District Court Div. O, N......