Opinion
2018 KA 1776
05-31-2019
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ELTON D. GAINES, III
Lieu T. Vo Clark Louisiana Appellate Project Mandeville, Louisiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT DEFENDANT—Elton D. Gaines, III Hillar C. Moore, III District Attorney Allison Miller Rutzen William Jordan Assistant District Attorneys Baton Rouge, Louisiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE The State of Louisiana
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge • State of Louisiana
Docket Number 09-15-0631 • Section VII The Honorable Beau M. Higginbotham, Judge Presiding Lieu T. Vo Clark
Louisiana Appellate Project
Mandeville, Louisiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
DEFENDANT—Elton D. Gaines,
III Hillar C. Moore, III
District Attorney Allison Miller Rutzen
William Jordan
Assistant District Attorneys
Baton Rouge, Louisiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
The State of Louisiana BEFORE: WELCH, CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ. WELCH, J.
The Grand Jury of the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, charged the defendant, Elton D. Gaines, III, by grand jury indictment with one count of second degree murder, which is a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. The defendant pled not guilty. Following a trial by jury, the jury found the defendant guilty of the responsive verdict of manslaughter, which is a violation of La. R.S. 14:31. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years imprisonment at hard labor. The defendant now appeals, raising two assignments of error. For the following reasons, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On the evening of June 20, 2015, and into the early morning hours of June 21, 2015, Christina Allbritton threw a birthday party for her godsister at her home on East Upland in Baton Rouge. Ms. Allbritton posted an invitation to the party on her Instagram page and had the defendant, a family friend, act as a security guard to check the guests for weapons. At one point, Ms. Allbritton turned away a group of people because the party was overcrowded. A black car then passed the house. Ms. Allbritton testified that a gunshot rang out, the defendant fired back, and everyone ran. Ms. Allbritton later testified that she could not tell whether "multiple shots" came from the black car, but she believed the defendant fired his gun at the black car. The defendant then left the party, and the police were called. At trial, on re-direct, Ms. Allbritton stated that she did not remember her statement to the police that she had seen the passenger in the front seat of the black car firing shots into the air.
In the early morning hours of June 21, 2015, Ayana Burrell, accompanied by her cousin Alissa Yarber, and her friend, Donlisha Patterson, drove a silver Honda Accord to a party at North Foster Drive and Florida Boulevard, but that party was ending by the time the girls arrived. The girls saw from Instagram that another party was in progress on East Upland and traveled by car to that location—Ms. Allbritton's party—but left because the attendees were high school students. The girls drove the silver Honda Accord to pick up snacks and then decided to go home. On their way, the girls passed Ms. Allbritton's house on East Upland where the second party was located. Ms. Burrell, the driver, saw attendees running and sped up because she "knew that something was about to happen." Multiple gunshots then rang out. At trial, Ms. Burrell testified that she did not see any other cars on the road at the time, nor did she see the defendant. Neither Ms. Burrell, Ms. Yarber, nor Ms. Patterson had a gun in the car. Ms. Patterson was in the backseat and was struck by the gunfire. Emergency medical services transported Ms. Patterson to Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, where she later died of a single gunshot wound to the head.
On June 23, 2015, the defendant turned himself and his gun in to East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's homicide detectives. Testing of the defendant's gun indicated it had fired the seven shell casings police found at the scene of the shooting. The defendant informed the police that he did not see a gun in the black car, nor was he able to see who the first shooter was or what he was aiming for.
EXCESSIVE SENTENCE
In his first assignment of error, the defendant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to reconsider the sentence. In his second assignment of error, the defendant claims his sentence is unconstitutionally excessive. Specifically, the defendant claims that the trial court did not consider his lack of criminal convictions and that the trial court was influenced by the defendant's previous arrest for a crime allegedly involving a gun. Because these assignments of error are so closely related, we will address them together.
Article I, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits the imposition of cruel or excessive punishment. Although a sentence may be within statutory limits, it may violate a defendant's constitutional right against excessive punishment and is subject to appellate review. A sentence is constitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense or is nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. 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. A district court is given wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within statutory limits, and the sentence imposed by it should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Forrest, 2016-1678 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/21/17), 231 So. 3d 865, 872, writ denied, 2017-1683 (La. 6/15/18), 257 So. 3d 687.
The Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth items that must be considered by the district court before imposing sentence. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1. The trial court need not recite the entire checklist of Article 894.1, but the record must reflect that it adequately considered the guidelines. Forrest, 231 So. 3d at 872.
The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, 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. The trial judge should review the defendant's personal history, his prior criminal record, the seriousness of the offense, the likelihood that he will commit another crime, and his potential for rehabilitation through correctional services other than confinement. State v. Dufrene, 2017-1496 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/4/18), 251 So. 3d 1114, 1125.
As applicable in this case, manslaughter is a homicide committed, without any intent to cause death or great bodily harm when the offender is engaged in the perpetration of any felony not enumerated in La. C.Cr.P. arts. 30 or 30.1. La. R.S. 14:31(A)(2)(a); see also La. R.S. 14:94 (illegal use of weapons). Whoever commits manslaughter shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than forty years. La. R.S. 14:31(B). The defendant herein was sentenced to twenty years at hard labor.
With regard to the defendant's argument that the trial court judge improperly considered a prior arrest, we note that the pre-sentence investigation ("PSI") states the defendant was arrested for illegal carrying of weapons on November 20, 2012. A sentencing judge may consider any prior criminal activity of a defendant, even if that activity did not result in conviction or arrest. State v. Bridget, 2012-1547 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/22/13), 2013 WL 1189464, at *6 (unpublished). Therefore, the trial court properly considered the defendant's prior arrest.
At the sentencing hearing, the defendant apologized to the victim's family for their loss and stated that he could "just only imagine the feeling that they're going through." The victim's mother, Shironne Patterson, testified and told the defendant she knew her daughter's killing was not intentional, but she wanted him to think about what happened to her. She added that she did not want the defendant to receive the maximum sentence of forty years and hoped that he would have the chance to see his son get married, graduate, and have a family.
The trial court judge noted that he had reviewed the pre-sentence investigation ("PSI") and sat through the trial. He characterized the victim's death as a "tragedy" and "unnecessary." The trial judge noted that he had taken into consideration the facts of the case and the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record, with the exception of an arrest that "dealt with a gun." The trial judge explained that this arrest, regardless of whether there was a conviction, "[k]ind of paints a picture to me," and understood that the defendant might have had good intentions, but they were not well thought out. Informing the defendant that it would be "very easy" to sentence him to the maximum of forty years, the trial judge nevertheless considered Shironne Patterson's testimony and sentenced the defendant to twenty years at hard labor because the defendant's actions were unintentional.
A thorough review of the record reveals that the trial court adequately considered the criteria of La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 and did not manifestly abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence herein. See La. C.Cr.P. arts. 894.1(B)(9), (B)(10), (B)(18), and (B)(33). The trial judge, having presided over the trial and having heard all relevant facts and arguments, properly concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances in this case. Given the defendant's wanton firing of his gun, however unintentional, that resulted in the death of the victim, an innocent passerby, and the defendant's apparent past history of misusing firearms, the sentence imposed was not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense or shocking to the sense of conscience, and was not constitutionally excessive.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.