Judgment rendered July 16, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 56,363-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
ANTHONY J. REMEDES Appellant
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 389,078
Honorable Donald E. Hathaway, Jr., Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Douglas Lee Harville
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
COURTNEY N. RAY TOMMY J. JOHNSON Assistant District Attorneys
Before PITMAN, STEPHENS, and THOMPSON, JJ. PITMAN, C. J.
Defendant Anthony J. Remedes appeals as constitutionally excessive
his three sentences of 30 years at hard labor without benefit of parole,
probation or suspension of sentence, to be served consecutively, which were
imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of possession of pornography
involving a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13 years, violations
of La. R.S. 14:81.1. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS
Defendant was charged with three counts of violating La.
R.S. 14:81.1(A)(1) and (E)(5)(a), pornography involving juveniles when the
victim is under the age of 13 and the offender is 17 years of age and older.
On April 24, 2023, Defendant pled guilty and admitted to purchasing and
possessing pornography depicting three victims, ages 3 to 5 years old, 4 to
5 years old, and 10 to 13 years old, being victimized and forced to perform
oral sex on adult males, including having at least two of the men masturbate
into the mouths of the two youngest children.
The trial court informed him that the sentencing range for his crimes
was a minimum of 10 years in prison and a maximum of 40 years without
benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. No mention was
made of whether the sentences would be imposed concurrently or
consecutively. Defendant was informed of all of his rights and those he
would be waiving if he pled guilty, and he acknowledged he understood. He
pled guilty to all three counts without entering a plea bargain agreement. A
presentence investigation report (“PSI”) was ordered.
On June 26, 2023, the trial court reviewed the facts in the PSI and
found that Defendant was 39 years old at the time of his arrest, he had graduated from high school, lived alone, had never been married, had never
been employed and had a criminal history of two counts of cyberstalking
and one of pornography involving juveniles. It considered factors found in
La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and found there was undue risk that he would commit
another crime, that he was in need of correctional treatment or custodial
environment and that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of
the crimes. It also considered mitigating factors and found none but did find
aggravating factors. Having so stated, it imposed 30-year sentences for each
of the three crimes to which Defendant pled guilty, to be served
consecutively to each other without benefit of parole, probation or
suspension of sentence. It waived the mandatory fine of $50,000.
Defendant made no objection at the time of sentencing but filed a motion to
reconsider sentence days later, which was denied.
Defendant appeals his sentences and claims that the consecutive
nature of the three sentences causes them to be constitutionally excessive.
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that the three sentences, which were 30 years each,
but which were made consecutive instead of concurrent, now total a 90-year
sentence without benefits. He contends that the consecutive sentences are
effectively a life sentence and are constitutionally harsh. He notes that even
though a sentence is within statutory limits, it can be reviewed for
constitutional excessiveness when the punishment is grossly
disproportionate to the severity of the offense or constitutes nothing more
than needless infliction of pain and suffering.
The state argues that a reviewing court may not set aside a sentence
absent an abuse of discretion. It contends that Defendant limited his sole 2 issue for review to the total sentence of 90 years and whether the total
sentence was excessive. The state asserts that the framing of this issue is
nothing more than an attempt to review the consecutive sentences as one that
is constitutionally excessive, when, in fact, the sentences were three separate
sentences of 30 years each for three separate crimes. Defendant was
informed at the time of the guilty plea that his exposure to incarceration was
10 to 40 years for each crime. It contends that the failure to assert as error
the excessiveness of the sentences on each separate count prohibits review
on that particular issue. It also contends that the proportionality of the
sentences is not briefed and is not subject to review. It argues that those
sentences are not excessive, and there has been no abuse of discretion in the
trial court’s decision to order the sentences to be served consecutively.
When reviewing an excessive sentence claim, the appellate court uses
a two-prong test. First, the record must demonstrate that the trial court
complied with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The trial court is not required to list
every aggravating and mitigating circumstance, but the record must reflect
that it adequately considered the guidelines of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State
v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983). The trial court should consider the
defendant’s personal history and prior criminal record, the seriousness of the
offense, the likelihood that the defendant will commit another crime and the
defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049 (La.
1981). The trial judge is not limited to a consideration of the defendant’s
prior convictions but may properly review all of his prior criminal activity.
State v. Russell, 40,526 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/27/05), 920 So. 2d 866, writ
denied, 06-0478 (La. 9/29/06), 937 So. 2d 851. The trial court is not required
to assign any particular weight to any specific matters at sentencing. State v. 3 Quiambao, 36,587 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/11/02), 833 So. 2d 1103, writ denied,
03-0477 (La. 5/16/03), 843 So. 2d 1130.
Second, the appellate court must determine if the sentence is
constitutionally excessive. A sentence is excessive and violates La. Const.
art. I, § 20, if it is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime or is
nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and
suffering. State v. Bonanno, 384 So. 2d 355 (La. 1980). 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. Id. A trial
court has wide discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory limits,
and a sentence should not be set aside absent a showing of abuse of
discretion. State v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered July 16, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 56,363-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
ANTHONY J. REMEDES Appellant
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 389,078
Honorable Donald E. Hathaway, Jr., Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Douglas Lee Harville
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
COURTNEY N. RAY TOMMY J. JOHNSON Assistant District Attorneys
Before PITMAN, STEPHENS, and THOMPSON, JJ. PITMAN, C. J.
Defendant Anthony J. Remedes appeals as constitutionally excessive
his three sentences of 30 years at hard labor without benefit of parole,
probation or suspension of sentence, to be served consecutively, which were
imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of possession of pornography
involving a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13 years, violations
of La. R.S. 14:81.1. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS
Defendant was charged with three counts of violating La.
R.S. 14:81.1(A)(1) and (E)(5)(a), pornography involving juveniles when the
victim is under the age of 13 and the offender is 17 years of age and older.
On April 24, 2023, Defendant pled guilty and admitted to purchasing and
possessing pornography depicting three victims, ages 3 to 5 years old, 4 to
5 years old, and 10 to 13 years old, being victimized and forced to perform
oral sex on adult males, including having at least two of the men masturbate
into the mouths of the two youngest children.
The trial court informed him that the sentencing range for his crimes
was a minimum of 10 years in prison and a maximum of 40 years without
benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. No mention was
made of whether the sentences would be imposed concurrently or
consecutively. Defendant was informed of all of his rights and those he
would be waiving if he pled guilty, and he acknowledged he understood. He
pled guilty to all three counts without entering a plea bargain agreement. A
presentence investigation report (“PSI”) was ordered.
On June 26, 2023, the trial court reviewed the facts in the PSI and
found that Defendant was 39 years old at the time of his arrest, he had graduated from high school, lived alone, had never been married, had never
been employed and had a criminal history of two counts of cyberstalking
and one of pornography involving juveniles. It considered factors found in
La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and found there was undue risk that he would commit
another crime, that he was in need of correctional treatment or custodial
environment and that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of
the crimes. It also considered mitigating factors and found none but did find
aggravating factors. Having so stated, it imposed 30-year sentences for each
of the three crimes to which Defendant pled guilty, to be served
consecutively to each other without benefit of parole, probation or
suspension of sentence. It waived the mandatory fine of $50,000.
Defendant made no objection at the time of sentencing but filed a motion to
reconsider sentence days later, which was denied.
Defendant appeals his sentences and claims that the consecutive
nature of the three sentences causes them to be constitutionally excessive.
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that the three sentences, which were 30 years each,
but which were made consecutive instead of concurrent, now total a 90-year
sentence without benefits. He contends that the consecutive sentences are
effectively a life sentence and are constitutionally harsh. He notes that even
though a sentence is within statutory limits, it can be reviewed for
constitutional excessiveness when the punishment is grossly
disproportionate to the severity of the offense or constitutes nothing more
than needless infliction of pain and suffering.
The state argues that a reviewing court may not set aside a sentence
absent an abuse of discretion. It contends that Defendant limited his sole 2 issue for review to the total sentence of 90 years and whether the total
sentence was excessive. The state asserts that the framing of this issue is
nothing more than an attempt to review the consecutive sentences as one that
is constitutionally excessive, when, in fact, the sentences were three separate
sentences of 30 years each for three separate crimes. Defendant was
informed at the time of the guilty plea that his exposure to incarceration was
10 to 40 years for each crime. It contends that the failure to assert as error
the excessiveness of the sentences on each separate count prohibits review
on that particular issue. It also contends that the proportionality of the
sentences is not briefed and is not subject to review. It argues that those
sentences are not excessive, and there has been no abuse of discretion in the
trial court’s decision to order the sentences to be served consecutively.
When reviewing an excessive sentence claim, the appellate court uses
a two-prong test. First, the record must demonstrate that the trial court
complied with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The trial court is not required to list
every aggravating and mitigating circumstance, but the record must reflect
that it adequately considered the guidelines of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State
v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983). The trial court should consider the
defendant’s personal history and prior criminal record, the seriousness of the
offense, the likelihood that the defendant will commit another crime and the
defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049 (La.
1981). The trial judge is not limited to a consideration of the defendant’s
prior convictions but may properly review all of his prior criminal activity.
State v. Russell, 40,526 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/27/05), 920 So. 2d 866, writ
denied, 06-0478 (La. 9/29/06), 937 So. 2d 851. The trial court is not required
to assign any particular weight to any specific matters at sentencing. State v. 3 Quiambao, 36,587 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/11/02), 833 So. 2d 1103, writ denied,
03-0477 (La. 5/16/03), 843 So. 2d 1130.
Second, the appellate court must determine if the sentence is
constitutionally excessive. A sentence is excessive and violates La. Const.
art. I, § 20, if it is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime or is
nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and
suffering. State v. Bonanno, 384 So. 2d 355 (La. 1980). 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. Id. A trial
court has wide discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory limits,
and a sentence should not be set aside absent a showing of abuse of
discretion. State v. Square, 433 So. 2d 104 (La. 1983); State v. Black,
28,100 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/28/96), 669 So. 2d 667, writ denied, 96-0836 (La.
9/20/96), 679 So. 2d 430. On review, an appellate court does not determine
whether another sentence may have been more appropriate, but whether the
trial court abused its discretion. State v. Williams, 03-3514 (La. 12/13/04),
893 So. 2d 7; State v. Free, 46,894 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/25/12), 86 So. 3d 29.
Regarding concurrent and consecutive sentences, La. C. Cr. P. art. 883
provides in pertinent part:
If the defendant is convicted of two or more offenses based on the same act or transaction, or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively. Other sentences of imprisonment shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that some or all of them be served concurrently.
Concurrent sentences arising out of a single cause of conduct are not
mandatory, and it is within a trial court’s discretion to order sentences to run
consecutively rather than concurrently. State v. Pittman, 51,602 (La. App. 4 2 Cir. 4/11/18), 244 So. 3d 830, writ denied, 18-0701 (La. 10/15/18),
253 So. 3d 1307. A judgment directing that sentences arising from a single
course of conduct be served consecutively requires particular justification
from the evidence or record. Id. When consecutive sentences are imposed,
the court shall state the factors considered and its reasons for the consecutive
terms. Id. Among the factors to be considered are the defendant’s criminal
history, the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, the viciousness of the
crimes, the harm done to the victims, whether the defendant constitutes an
unusual risk of danger to the public, the potential for defendant’s
rehabilitation and whether defendant has received a benefit from a plea
bargain. Id. The failure to articulate specific reasons for consecutive
sentences does not require remand if the record provides an adequate factual
basis to support consecutive sentences. Id.
The decision to make sentences consecutive rather than concurrent is
within the trial court’s discretion. State v. Farria, 412 So. 2d 577 (La.
1982); State v. Moss, 55,454 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/24), 379 So. 3d 285.
La. R.S. 14:81.1(A)(1) and (E)(5)(a), entitled Pornography Involving
Juveniles, states:
A.(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to produce, promote, advertise, distribute, possess, or possess with the intent to distribute pornography involving juveniles. * ** E. (1)(a) Whoever intentionally possesses pornography involving juveniles shall be fined not more than fifty thousand dollars and shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than five years or more than twenty years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. *** (5)(a) Whoever commits the crime of pornography involving juveniles punishable by the provisions of Paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this Subsection when the victim is under the age of thirteen years and the offender is seventeen years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for not 5 less than one-half the longest term nor more than twice the longest term of imprisonment provided in Paragraph (1), (2), and (3) of this Subsection. The sentence imposed shall be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
The trial court correctly informed Defendant that the sentencing range
for the crimes to which he pled guilty was 10 to 40 years at hard labor to be
served without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. It
made no statements concerning whether the sentences for the three crimes
would be imposed concurrently or consecutively. The sentences of 30 years
for each incident are not constitutionally excessive and are within the
parameters prescribed by law.
The sentencing transcript in the record does not specifically contain
any statement specifying why the sentences were imposed consecutively;
however, the trial court thoroughly discussed all of the factors pertinent to
the imposition of sentence. It also discussed the factors under La. C. Cr. P.
art. 894.1, including Defendant’s criminal history showing two counts of
cyberstalking and one count of pornography involving juveniles in 2016. It
found there was an undue risk that Defendant would commit another crime,
that he is in need of correctional treatment or a custodial environment and
that aggravating factors applied. These aggravating factors included that the
offenses involved multiple victims and separate incidents for which separate
sentences had not been imposed. It also found no mitigating factors. It
stated that serious harm was done to the children who were the victims of
these crimes.
We find no abuse of discretion in the sentencing by the trial court.
The failure to articulate specific reasons for consecutive sentences does not
require remand if the record provides an adequate factual basis to support 6 consecutive sentences. The vile nature of the pornographic images
possessed by Defendant warrants the sentences imposed. Each individual
sentence is appropriate, and the imposition of consecutive sentences was
within the broad discretion of the court. For the foregoing reasons, this
assignment of error is without merit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the three convictions and three sentences
of 30 years each at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation or
suspension of sentence, to be served consecutively, imposed upon Defendant
Anthony J. Remedes are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.