State v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 15 December 2021
• Docket Number: 2021-KA-0488
• Citation: 334 So.3d 449
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Aaron K. MITCHELL
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

334 So.3d 449

STATE of Louisiana

v.Aaron K. MITCHELL

NO. 2021-KA-0488

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

DECEMBER 15, 2021

Jason Rogers Williams, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, G. Benjamin Cohen, Chief of Appeals, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ORLEANS PARISH, 619 S. White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR STATE OF LOUISIANA/APPELLEE

Meghan Harwell Bitoun, LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, P.O. Box 4252, New Orleans, LA 70178-4252, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Dale N. Atkins )

Judge Daniel L. Dysart

This case concerns the imposition of a twenty-four year sentence for Aaron K. Mitchell in connection with his guilty plea to one count of obstruction of justice in a homicide investigation. The trial court sentenced Mr. Mitchell on December 21, 2020. Mr. Mitchell timely appealed his sentence on grounds that it is unconstitutionally excessive. Considering the facts of this case and the relevant jurisprudence, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a twenty-four year sentence on Mr. Mitchell. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's sentence.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 22, 2019, defendant, Aaron K. Mitchell, was charged by grand jury indictment with one count of second degree murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1, one count of obstruction of justice in the homicide investigation, in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1(A)(1), and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1. On May 1, 2019, defendant entered a plea of not guilty with regard to all three charges. On March 2, 2020, defendant, with regard to his obstruction of justice charge, changed his plea to guilty.¹

Prior to his sentencing in connection with his guilty plea, defendant proceeded to trial on the charges of second degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon. On March 6, 2020, the jury, by a vote of eleven to one, found defendant guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm; by a vote of ten to two, the jury found defendant guilty of the lesser-included charge of manslaughter.²

On December 21, 2020, the trial court sentenced defendant in connection with his plea of guilty to the charge of obstruction of justice in a homicide investigation. Before sentencing, the court ascertained that defendant had prior felony convictions for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. It was further determined that defendant was twenty-eight years old. Thereafter, the court heard briefly from defendant's grandmother, who stated that defendant was the father of three and needed to be home with his children, and from defendant who asked for mercy. The court then proceeded with sentencing, providing:

All right, Mr. Mitchell. I do want to say this to you. Of course, I sat through the trial and heard a considerable amount of evidence about your involvement in the death of the gentleman that was related to the plea of guilty that you entered before me that you obstructed justice in a murder investigation.

It was a, really, [sordid] crime that was committed, and I'm not - - I'm not judging you on the issue that's now been reopened by me as to whether you participated in the murder of that gentleman, that elderly gentleman, but I am looking at the whole scene of your involvement in the case and that you did not - - not only did you not truthfully tell the police, you actively tried to mislead them in their investigation of that murder.

I am taking into consideration, of course, your age and the fact that you have children. I do feel that you need to spend a significant amount of time in the custodial setting; that I could not give you probation because of your involvement in this case.

I do think that you were untruthful to the jury as to what you had pled guilty to and how you were trying to describe it, and I do note that, on several occasions during the trial, you, in my view, changed your story and did try to, in fact, carry on, misleading the jury as to what took place when you testified. It's very serious, the murder investigation.

All right. I sentence you to serve [twenty-four] years in the custody of the Department of Corrections [with] credit for all time served. I'm going to recommend you for any and all self-help, self-improvement programs for which you might be eligible.

Immediately following the court's sentencing, defense counsel orally objected to the sentence. Thereafter, in response to the court's query as to whether counsel wanted "to make an oral motion for appeal," counsel responded: "Yes, I do. I'll oral motion for appeal on reconsidering the sentence ...." Later, counsel clarified that he was orally moving "to appeal the sentence."

Defendant timely filed his appellant brief on September 27, 2021.³ The State filed its appellee brief on September 29, 2021.

ERRORS PATENT

No errors patent were discerned.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

As noted above, defendant's sole claim for relief is that the imposed sentence was excessive. In its brief, the State argues that defendant did not preserve the instant claim for appellate review as counsel did not comply with the requirements of La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.1.⁴

Where a defendant "failed to file a written motion for reconsideration of sentence as required by La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.1 ; however, [he] orally objected to the sentence at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing[,]" defendant "is limited to having this [C]ourt review the bare claim of excessiveness of the sentence." State v. Thompson, 98-0988, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/26/00), 752 So.2d 293, 297 (citing State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993) ). In State v. Kirkling, 2004-1906, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/18/05), 904 So.2d 786, 790 (quoting State v. Miller, 2000-0218, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/25/01), 792 So.2d 104, 111 ), the Court observed: "[A] simple objection to the sentence is sufficient to preserve appellate review on the grounds of excessiveness."

In this instant matter, defense counsel did not file a written motion for reconsideration of his sentence but, as set forth in the recitation of facts, defense counsel specifically stated, immediately after the court rendered its sentence, that he was objecting to the sentence. Thus, a review of defendant's sentence on the ground of excessiveness is appropriate.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

In support of his argument that his twenty-four-year sentence was excessive, defendant complains that "the trial court did not base its sentence on La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 and instead [inappropriately] based its sentence solely on the facts and circumstances which were brought to light during the trial that resulted in a non-unanimous jury verdict."

Article I, § 20 of the Louisiana Constitution explicitly prohibits the imposition of excessive sentences. State v. Wilson , 2014-1267, p. 23 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/29/15), 165 So.3d 1150, 1165. "The excessiveness of a sentence is a question of law, and a reviewing court will not set aside a sentence [for excessiveness] absent a manifest abuse of discretion by the trial [judge]." State v. Alridge, 2017-0231, p. 39 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/23/18), 249 So.3d 260, 288, writ denied, 2018-1046 (La. 1/8/19), 259 So.3d 1021. (The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded on Ramos grounds).

Although a sentence is within the statutory limits, the sentence may still violate a defendant's constitutional right against excessive punishment. State v. Every , 2009-0721, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/24/10), 35 So. 3d 410, 417 (quoting State v. Smith , 2001-2574, p. 6 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So.2d 1, 4 ). "However, the penalties provided by the legislature reflect the degree to which the criminal conduct is an affront to society." State v. Cassimere , 2009-1075, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/17/10), 34 So. 3d 954, 958 (quoting State v. Landry , 2003-1671, p. 8 (La. Ap. 4 Cir. 3/31/04), 871 So.2d 1235, 1239 ). A sentence is unconstitutionally excessive if it makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment, is nothing more than the purposeless imposition of pain and suffering, and is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. State v. Ambeau , 2008-1191, p. 9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/11/09), 6 So.3d 215, 221 (citing State v. Bertrand , 2004-1496, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/15/04), 891 So.2d 752, 757 ). "A sentence is grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the harm done to society, it shocks the sense of justice." State v. Vargas-Alcerreca , 2012-1070, p. 25 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/2/13), 126 So.3d 569, 583 (quoting State v. Galindo , 2006-1090, pp. 15-16 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/3/07), 968 So.2d 1102, 1113 ).

A trial court is afforded broad discretion in making sentencing decisions and an appellate court will not set aside an imposed sentence if the record supports the sentence imposed. State v. Bradley , 2018-0734, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/15/19), 272 So.3d 94, 99-100 (quoting State v. Williams , 2015-0866, pp. 12-13 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/20/16), 186 So.3d 242, 250 ). Thus, "[t]he relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate." State v. Mathieu , 2018-964, p. 4 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/6/19), 283 So.3d 1041, 1045 (citing State v. Cook , 95-2784 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957 ).

In reviewing a claim that a sentence is excessive, an appellate court generally must determine whether the trial judge has adequately complied with statutory guidelines in La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 and whether the sentence is warranted under the facts established by the record.

State v. Wiltz , 2008-1441, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/16/09), 28 So.3d 554, 561 (quoting State v. Batiste , 2006-0875, p. 18 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/20/06), 947 So.2d 810, 820 ). However, even where there has not been full compliance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, resentencing is unnecessary...