Judgment rendered December 17, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 56,622-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
ATARI P. WOODS Appellant
Appealed from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana Trial Court No. 24CR34867
Honorable Amy Burford McCartney, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Chad Ikerd
ATARI P. WOODS Pro Se
CHARLES BLAYLOCK ADAMS Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
EDWIN L. BLEWER, III PAMELA ROXANNE MOSER Assistant District Attorneys
Before PITMAN, STONE, and ELLENDER, JJ. STONE, J.
This appeal arises from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court, the
Honorable Amy Buford McCartney, presiding. In an amended bill of
information, Atari P. Woods (“Woods”) was charged with three counts of
felony drug possession that include: possession with the intent to distribute a
Schedule II CDS, a violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A)(1) and (B)(1)(a);
possession of a Schedule II CDS less than two grams, a violation of La. R.S.
40:967(C)(1); and introduction of contraband into a penal institution, a
violation of La. R.S. 14:402. Woods pled guilty to introduction of
contraband into a jail in exchange for the state’s dismissal of the remaining
felony charges. Woods was thereafter sentenced to 10 years at hard labor
and this appeal followed.
FACTS
On June 25, 2024, Narcotics agents with the DeSoto Parish Sheriff’s
Office assisted probation and parole with a home check after being informed
that Woods was involved in drug distribution.1 When officers arrived to
conduct the check, Woods was the only individual at the residence. Notably,
this residence was not registered with the state probation and parole office,
however, a tip from a confidential informant revealed that Woods was living
there. During the search, deputies found drugs in a light fixture located in
the kitchen and on Woods’ person, and also drug paraphernalia.2 As this
was a probation violation, Woods was arrested and booked into the DeSoto
1 At the time of this arrest, Woods was under the supervision of the office of probation and parole. 2 Officers located a digital scale with narcotics residue on it. Parish Detention Facility. Upon booking, more drugs were found in his
pants pocket. Testing at the Shreveport crime lab determined that the drugs
found at the residence, and in Woods’ possession at the jail, were
methamphetamine. Accordingly, he was charged with introduction of
contraband into a penal facility.
The original bill of information charged Woods with one count of
possession with intent to distribute; one count of possession of schedule II
CDS less than two grams; one count of introduction (or sending) of
contraband into a penal institution; and three counts of aggravated cruelty to
animals.3
In the months leading up to trial, Woods filed a series of pro se
motions with the court, most of which were not adopted by his appointed
counsel, resulting in his presentation of argument for himself.4 Woods’ pro
se motions were unsupported by Louisiana law and were all denied by the
trial court. The matter proceeded to trial. During jury selection, Woods
elected to plead guilty in exchange for the state dismissing two of the three
felony charges and not filing a multi-bill against him. On January 28, 2025,
Woods pled guilty to introduction of contraband into a penal institution.
Sentencing was left to the trial court, and a presentence investigation report
was ordered.
Prior to sentencing, Woods filed a pro se motion to withdraw his
guilty plea, asserting that he did not consent to a presentence investigation
3 On the property during the search, 3 small dogs were chained without food, water, or shelter. The dogs were in direct sunlight and extreme heat without access to shade. Woods claimed ownership of the dogs. 4 Motions included: (1) a motion to quash the bill of information, (2) a motion to suppress, and (3) a motion to return seized property from the search. 2 report and desired a more amenable plea offer from the state. The motion
was denied by the trial court, and Woods was thereafter sentenced to a
maximum of 10 years at hard labor. The trial court further recommended
Woods for substance abuse treatment. A motion to reconsider his sentence
was denied by the trial court without hearing. Woods now appeals, asserting
that his sentence is excessive.
DISCUSSION
Woods filed a pro se brief asserting that (1) the trial court abused its
discretion and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Because he
waived his right to appeal by pleading guilty, his claims of abuse of
discretion and ineffective assistance of counsel are pretermitted. In Woods’
counseled brief, he asserts that his 10-year sentence is constitutionally
excessive, under both state and federal constitutions, as it is shockingly
disproportionate to the circumstances.
An excessive sentence claim is reviewed by examining whether the
trial court adequately considered the guidelines established in La. C. Cr. P.
art. 894.1 and whether the sentence is constitutionally excessive. State v.
Dowles, 54,483 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/25/22), 339 So. 3d 749, State v. Vanhorn,
52,583 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/19), 268 So. 3d 357, writ denied, 20-00745 (La.
11/19/19), 282 So. 3d 1065. First, the record must show that the trial court
took cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. 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 provision. The trial court
is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating circumstance, so long
as the record reflects that it adequately considered the guidelines of the
3 article. State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983), State v. Croskey, 53,505
(La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/20), 296 So. 3d 1151.
The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article
I § 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of cruel or
excessive punishment. Although a sentence falls within statutory limits, it
may be excessive. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So. 2d 762 (La. 1979). The
appellate court must determine if the sentence is constitutionally excessive.
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So. 2d 1. To assess a claim that a
sentence violates La. Const. art. I § 20, the appellate court must determine if
the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense or
nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and
suffering. State v. Dorthey, 623 So. 2d 1276 (La. 1993), State v. Bonanno,
384 So. 2d 355 (La. 1980). A sentence is considered grossly
disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are viewed in light of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered December 17, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 56,622-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
ATARI P. WOODS Appellant
Appealed from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana Trial Court No. 24CR34867
Honorable Amy Burford McCartney, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Chad Ikerd
ATARI P. WOODS Pro Se
CHARLES BLAYLOCK ADAMS Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
EDWIN L. BLEWER, III PAMELA ROXANNE MOSER Assistant District Attorneys
Before PITMAN, STONE, and ELLENDER, JJ. STONE, J.
This appeal arises from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court, the
Honorable Amy Buford McCartney, presiding. In an amended bill of
information, Atari P. Woods (“Woods”) was charged with three counts of
felony drug possession that include: possession with the intent to distribute a
Schedule II CDS, a violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A)(1) and (B)(1)(a);
possession of a Schedule II CDS less than two grams, a violation of La. R.S.
40:967(C)(1); and introduction of contraband into a penal institution, a
violation of La. R.S. 14:402. Woods pled guilty to introduction of
contraband into a jail in exchange for the state’s dismissal of the remaining
felony charges. Woods was thereafter sentenced to 10 years at hard labor
and this appeal followed.
FACTS
On June 25, 2024, Narcotics agents with the DeSoto Parish Sheriff’s
Office assisted probation and parole with a home check after being informed
that Woods was involved in drug distribution.1 When officers arrived to
conduct the check, Woods was the only individual at the residence. Notably,
this residence was not registered with the state probation and parole office,
however, a tip from a confidential informant revealed that Woods was living
there. During the search, deputies found drugs in a light fixture located in
the kitchen and on Woods’ person, and also drug paraphernalia.2 As this
was a probation violation, Woods was arrested and booked into the DeSoto
1 At the time of this arrest, Woods was under the supervision of the office of probation and parole. 2 Officers located a digital scale with narcotics residue on it. Parish Detention Facility. Upon booking, more drugs were found in his
pants pocket. Testing at the Shreveport crime lab determined that the drugs
found at the residence, and in Woods’ possession at the jail, were
methamphetamine. Accordingly, he was charged with introduction of
contraband into a penal facility.
The original bill of information charged Woods with one count of
possession with intent to distribute; one count of possession of schedule II
CDS less than two grams; one count of introduction (or sending) of
contraband into a penal institution; and three counts of aggravated cruelty to
animals.3
In the months leading up to trial, Woods filed a series of pro se
motions with the court, most of which were not adopted by his appointed
counsel, resulting in his presentation of argument for himself.4 Woods’ pro
se motions were unsupported by Louisiana law and were all denied by the
trial court. The matter proceeded to trial. During jury selection, Woods
elected to plead guilty in exchange for the state dismissing two of the three
felony charges and not filing a multi-bill against him. On January 28, 2025,
Woods pled guilty to introduction of contraband into a penal institution.
Sentencing was left to the trial court, and a presentence investigation report
was ordered.
Prior to sentencing, Woods filed a pro se motion to withdraw his
guilty plea, asserting that he did not consent to a presentence investigation
3 On the property during the search, 3 small dogs were chained without food, water, or shelter. The dogs were in direct sunlight and extreme heat without access to shade. Woods claimed ownership of the dogs. 4 Motions included: (1) a motion to quash the bill of information, (2) a motion to suppress, and (3) a motion to return seized property from the search. 2 report and desired a more amenable plea offer from the state. The motion
was denied by the trial court, and Woods was thereafter sentenced to a
maximum of 10 years at hard labor. The trial court further recommended
Woods for substance abuse treatment. A motion to reconsider his sentence
was denied by the trial court without hearing. Woods now appeals, asserting
that his sentence is excessive.
DISCUSSION
Woods filed a pro se brief asserting that (1) the trial court abused its
discretion and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Because he
waived his right to appeal by pleading guilty, his claims of abuse of
discretion and ineffective assistance of counsel are pretermitted. In Woods’
counseled brief, he asserts that his 10-year sentence is constitutionally
excessive, under both state and federal constitutions, as it is shockingly
disproportionate to the circumstances.
An excessive sentence claim is reviewed by examining whether the
trial court adequately considered the guidelines established in La. C. Cr. P.
art. 894.1 and whether the sentence is constitutionally excessive. State v.
Dowles, 54,483 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/25/22), 339 So. 3d 749, State v. Vanhorn,
52,583 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/19), 268 So. 3d 357, writ denied, 20-00745 (La.
11/19/19), 282 So. 3d 1065. First, the record must show that the trial court
took cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. 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 provision. The trial court
is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating circumstance, so long
as the record reflects that it adequately considered the guidelines of the
3 article. State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983), State v. Croskey, 53,505
(La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/20), 296 So. 3d 1151.
The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article
I § 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of cruel or
excessive punishment. Although a sentence falls within statutory limits, it
may be excessive. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So. 2d 762 (La. 1979). The
appellate court must determine if the sentence is constitutionally excessive.
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So. 2d 1. To assess a claim that a
sentence violates La. Const. art. I § 20, the appellate court must determine if
the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense or
nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and
suffering. State v. Dorthey, 623 So. 2d 1276 (La. 1993), State v. Bonanno,
384 So. 2d 355 (La. 1980). A sentence is considered grossly
disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are viewed in light of
the harm done to society, it shocks the sense of justice. State v. Weaver, 01-
0467 (La. 1/15/02), 805 So. 2d 166, State v. Meadows, 51, 843 (La. App.
Cir. 1/10/18), 246 So. 3d 639, writ denied, 18-0259 (La. 10/29/18) 254 So.
3d 1208. The sentencing court has wide discretion to impose a sentence
within the statutory limits, and the sentence imposed will not be set aside as
excessive absent a manifest abuse of that discretion. State v. Williams, 03-
3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So. 2d 7. 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. Gaines, 54,383 (La.
App. 2 Cir. 2/22/23), 358 So. 3d 194, writ denied, 23-00363 (La. 6/21/23),
362 So. 3d 428; State v. Tubbs, 52,417 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/20/19), 285 So.
3d 536, writ denied, 20-00307 (La. 7/31/20), 300 So. 3d 404, on recons., 20- 4 00307 (La. 9/8/20), 301 So. 3d 30, and writ denied, 20-00307 (La. 9/8/20),
301 So. 3d 30. Whoever commits the crime of introducing contraband into
or upon the grounds of any correctional facility shall be imprisoned with or
without hard labor for not more than ten years. La. R.S. 14:402(G)(1).
We find no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed by the trial
court. In sentencing Woods, the primary factors applied included: (1)
Woods’ extensive criminal history, (2) the undue risk that during a period of
suspended sentence or probation, he would likely commit another crime, and
(3) his substantial benefit as a result of his plea agreement. It is evident that
Woods has not responded well to noncustodial treatment, a prime example
being that he was under felony parole supervision at the time of his current
arrest. Woods’ probation has been revoked on three prior occasions for drug
abuse. Although Woods completed drug treatment during a previous period
of incarceration, he has almost always relapsed. Woods’ repeated history of
the same type of offenses over the years is significant and demonstrates his
unwillingness to be rehabilitated. Lastly, Woods’ presentence investigation
report indicated that he was a seven-time offender, and without his plea
agreement, his sentencing exposure would have been significantly higher.
To reiterate, the maximum number of years a defendant may be
sentenced for introducing contraband into a penal institution is ten years.
After thoroughly reviewing the 894.1 guidelines, Woods’ plea agreement,
and presentence investigation report, the trial court properly tailored a
sentence specific to Woods. The sentence in this matter is not
constitutionally excessive.
5 CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Woods’ conviction and sentence of
ten years at hard labor are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.