Judgment rendered September 27, 2023. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,266-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
CHRISTINA L. LOFTIN Appellant
Appealed from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana Trial Court No. 22CR32533
Honorable Amy B. McCartney, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Meghan Harwell Bitoun
CHARLES BLAYLOCK ADAMS Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
EDWIN L. BLEWER, III NANCY F. BERGER-SCHNEIDER Assistant District Attorneys
Before PITMAN, COX, and HUNTER, JJ.
HUNTER, J., concurs with written reasons. PITMAN, C. J.
Defendant Christina Loftin pled guilty to felony carnal knowledge of
a juvenile. The district court sentenced her to ten years at hard labor.
Defendant appeals her sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS
On May 17, 2022, the state filed a bill of information charging
Defendant with one count of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile, in
violation of La. R.S. 14:80. It alleged that on or about the period between
March 15 and March 30, 2022, Defendant engaged in sexual intercourse
with a juvenile at least 13 years of age but less than 17 years of age, and the
difference in their ages was four years or more.
At a hearing on June 16, 2022, Defendant pled guilty to felony carnal
knowledge of a juvenile. The district court requested that a presentence
investigation report (“PSI”) be prepared.
A sentencing hearing was held on August 29, 2022. Sondra Brumley,
the mother of the victim, provided a victim impact statement. She stated that
her son was born with special needs and that at the age of seven, a
neurobehavioral health center classified him as being emotionally disabled
and having low intelligence disorder, mixed receptive expressive language
disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive destructive
disorder and a high probability of childhood bipolar disorder. In 2022,
Brumley invited Defendant and her children to stay at her house after
Defendant told her that her husband beat her. Brumley testified that during
the week they stayed at her house, Defendant molested her son. Following
this molestation, she observed her son show signs of anger, aggression and
deep depression with suicidal tendencies. Brumley asked that the court impose the maximum sentence allowed because of her fear that Defendant
could harm more children.
Defendant chose to make a statement and admitted that she had a
“consensual” sexual relationship with a 16-year-old when she was 36. She
apologized to Brumley for abusing her trust and to the victim for the
“shameful things [she] allowed to happen between [them].” She took full
responsibility for her actions. She stated that since being in jail, her mental
health medications have been regulated, and she attributed her poor choices
to not taking her medication on top of mental stress from an abusive
marriage. She asked the district court to impose a sentence of probation so
she does not miss out on “precious time” raising her daughter.
The district court reviewed the PSI and noted that Defendant reported
that she was the victim of physical and sexual abuse when she was a child;
that she was raised by her grandmother; that she has an 18-year-old son and
a 6-year-old daughter; that she is separated from her husband; and that she is
the victim of domestic abuse. It stated that she dropped out of school in
ninth grade, obtained a GED in 2008 and has not been employed since the
age of 18. It noted that Defendant reported diagnoses of schizophrenia and
depression and has had two mental health hospitalizations, most recently in
2019. It stated that Defendant admitted to daily marijuana use since the age
of 14 and methamphetamine use and that she completed two 30-day
inpatient substance abuse programs, most recently in 2018. The court noted
that Defendant has one prior felony conviction for possession of a Schedule
II CDS in 2017 and a prior misdemeanor conviction for possession of
marijuana in 2007.
2 The district court also analyzed the La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 guidelines.
As to La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1(A), it determined that a lesser sentence would
deprecate the seriousness of the crime. It considered the mental health
disabilities of the victim and that Defendant knew or should have known of
such. It also noted the 20-year age disparity between Defendant and the
victim. The district court sentenced Defendant to ten years at hard labor and
required her to register as a sex offender and to complete a sex offender
treatment program. It also referred her for mental health treatment and
substance abuse treatment. It entered a permanent protective order that
prevents Defendant from having any contact with the victim.
On September 19, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to reconsider
sentence, arguing that it is excessive. The district court denied the motion.
Defendant appeals.
DISCUSSION
In her sole assignment of error, Defendant argues that the district
court imposed an unconstitutionally excessive maximum sentence. She
contends that a consideration of the particularities of this case point to a
lower sentence, including that her prior convictions are nonviolent, that she
expressed sincere remorse for her actions, that she has struggled in her life
with substance abuse and mental health crises and that she has been the
victim of sexual abuse as a child and domestic abuse as an adult. She notes
that since being imprisoned she has regulated her medication and learned to
be more independent. She expresses a plan to become employed and a
desire to raise her children.
The state argues that the district court did not abuse its discretion
when sentencing Defendant. It explains that the district court considered the 3 La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 guidelines and individualized the sentence to
Defendant based upon the offense she committed. It contends that the
sentence is reasonable when considering that Defendant took sexual
advantage of a disabled juvenile victim who was 20 years her junior. It
states that the sentence does not shock the sense of justice when considering
the societal harm and the harm to the individual victim created by her
offense. It notes that Defendant could have been charged with a more
serious offense and benefited from the lesser charge of felony carnal
knowledge of a juvenile.
An appellate court utilizes a two-pronged test in reviewing a sentence
for excessiveness. First, the record must show that the trial court complied
with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983). The
trial judge need not articulate every aggravating and mitigating circumstance
outlined in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, but the record must reflect that he
adequately considered these guidelines in particularizing the sentence to the
defendant. Id. The important elements the trial court should consider are
the defendant’s personal history, prior criminal record, seriousness of
offense and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered September 27, 2023. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,266-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
CHRISTINA L. LOFTIN Appellant
Appealed from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana Trial Court No. 22CR32533
Honorable Amy B. McCartney, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Meghan Harwell Bitoun
CHARLES BLAYLOCK ADAMS Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
EDWIN L. BLEWER, III NANCY F. BERGER-SCHNEIDER Assistant District Attorneys
Before PITMAN, COX, and HUNTER, JJ.
HUNTER, J., concurs with written reasons. PITMAN, C. J.
Defendant Christina Loftin pled guilty to felony carnal knowledge of
a juvenile. The district court sentenced her to ten years at hard labor.
Defendant appeals her sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS
On May 17, 2022, the state filed a bill of information charging
Defendant with one count of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile, in
violation of La. R.S. 14:80. It alleged that on or about the period between
March 15 and March 30, 2022, Defendant engaged in sexual intercourse
with a juvenile at least 13 years of age but less than 17 years of age, and the
difference in their ages was four years or more.
At a hearing on June 16, 2022, Defendant pled guilty to felony carnal
knowledge of a juvenile. The district court requested that a presentence
investigation report (“PSI”) be prepared.
A sentencing hearing was held on August 29, 2022. Sondra Brumley,
the mother of the victim, provided a victim impact statement. She stated that
her son was born with special needs and that at the age of seven, a
neurobehavioral health center classified him as being emotionally disabled
and having low intelligence disorder, mixed receptive expressive language
disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive destructive
disorder and a high probability of childhood bipolar disorder. In 2022,
Brumley invited Defendant and her children to stay at her house after
Defendant told her that her husband beat her. Brumley testified that during
the week they stayed at her house, Defendant molested her son. Following
this molestation, she observed her son show signs of anger, aggression and
deep depression with suicidal tendencies. Brumley asked that the court impose the maximum sentence allowed because of her fear that Defendant
could harm more children.
Defendant chose to make a statement and admitted that she had a
“consensual” sexual relationship with a 16-year-old when she was 36. She
apologized to Brumley for abusing her trust and to the victim for the
“shameful things [she] allowed to happen between [them].” She took full
responsibility for her actions. She stated that since being in jail, her mental
health medications have been regulated, and she attributed her poor choices
to not taking her medication on top of mental stress from an abusive
marriage. She asked the district court to impose a sentence of probation so
she does not miss out on “precious time” raising her daughter.
The district court reviewed the PSI and noted that Defendant reported
that she was the victim of physical and sexual abuse when she was a child;
that she was raised by her grandmother; that she has an 18-year-old son and
a 6-year-old daughter; that she is separated from her husband; and that she is
the victim of domestic abuse. It stated that she dropped out of school in
ninth grade, obtained a GED in 2008 and has not been employed since the
age of 18. It noted that Defendant reported diagnoses of schizophrenia and
depression and has had two mental health hospitalizations, most recently in
2019. It stated that Defendant admitted to daily marijuana use since the age
of 14 and methamphetamine use and that she completed two 30-day
inpatient substance abuse programs, most recently in 2018. The court noted
that Defendant has one prior felony conviction for possession of a Schedule
II CDS in 2017 and a prior misdemeanor conviction for possession of
marijuana in 2007.
2 The district court also analyzed the La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 guidelines.
As to La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1(A), it determined that a lesser sentence would
deprecate the seriousness of the crime. It considered the mental health
disabilities of the victim and that Defendant knew or should have known of
such. It also noted the 20-year age disparity between Defendant and the
victim. The district court sentenced Defendant to ten years at hard labor and
required her to register as a sex offender and to complete a sex offender
treatment program. It also referred her for mental health treatment and
substance abuse treatment. It entered a permanent protective order that
prevents Defendant from having any contact with the victim.
On September 19, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to reconsider
sentence, arguing that it is excessive. The district court denied the motion.
Defendant appeals.
DISCUSSION
In her sole assignment of error, Defendant argues that the district
court imposed an unconstitutionally excessive maximum sentence. She
contends that a consideration of the particularities of this case point to a
lower sentence, including that her prior convictions are nonviolent, that she
expressed sincere remorse for her actions, that she has struggled in her life
with substance abuse and mental health crises and that she has been the
victim of sexual abuse as a child and domestic abuse as an adult. She notes
that since being imprisoned she has regulated her medication and learned to
be more independent. She expresses a plan to become employed and a
desire to raise her children.
The state argues that the district court did not abuse its discretion
when sentencing Defendant. It explains that the district court considered the 3 La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 guidelines and individualized the sentence to
Defendant based upon the offense she committed. It contends that the
sentence is reasonable when considering that Defendant took sexual
advantage of a disabled juvenile victim who was 20 years her junior. It
states that the sentence does not shock the sense of justice when considering
the societal harm and the harm to the individual victim created by her
offense. It notes that Defendant could have been charged with a more
serious offense and benefited from the lesser charge of felony carnal
knowledge of a juvenile.
An appellate court utilizes a two-pronged test in reviewing a sentence
for excessiveness. First, the record must show that the trial court complied
with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983). The
trial judge need not articulate every aggravating and mitigating circumstance
outlined in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, but the record must reflect that he
adequately considered these guidelines in particularizing the sentence to the
defendant. Id. The important elements the trial court should consider are
the defendant’s personal history, prior criminal record, seriousness of
offense and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049
(La. 1981). There is no requirement that specific matters be given any
particular weight at sentencing. State v. DeBerry, 50,501 (La. App. 2 Cir.
4/13/16), 194 So. 3d 657, writ denied, 16-0959 (La. 5/1/17), 219 So. 3d 332.
Second, the court must determine whether the sentence is
unconstitutionally excessive. A sentence violates La. Const. art. I, § 20, if it
is grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense or nothing more
than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v.
4 Smith, 01-2574 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So. 2d 1, citing State v. Bonanno,
384 So. 2d 355 (La. 1980).
As a general rule, maximum or near-maximum sentences are reserved
for the worst offenders and the worst offenses. State v. Jones, 52,672 (La.
App. 2 Cir. 5/22/19), 273 So. 3d 585, writ denied, 19-01075 (La. 10/1/19),
280 So. 3d 160.
The trial court has wide discretion in the imposition of sentences
within statutory limits, and the sentence imposed should not be set aside as
excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion. State v.
Abercrumbia, 412 So. 2d 1027 (La. 1982). 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, citing State v. Cook,
95-2784 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So. 2d 957.
Whoever commits the crime of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile
shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned, with or without hard
labor, for not more than ten years, or both. La. R.S. 14:80(D)(1).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing Defendant
to ten years at hard labor. The trial court complied with La. C. Cr. P.
art. 894.1, reviewed the PSI and considered the statements made by
Defendant and the victim’s mother at the sentencing hearing. The trial court
detailed Defendant’s personal history, emphasized the seriousness of the
offense and particularized the sentence to Defendant. Considering the facts
of this case, the sentence imposed is not unconstitutionally excessive.
Defendant, who was 36 years old at the time of the offense, took sexual
5 advantage of a special needs 16-year-old. The ten-year sentence is not out
of proportion to the seriousness of the offense.
Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence of
Defendant Christina Loftin.
AFFIRMED.
6 HUNTER, J., concurring.
The State, within its sole discretion, has the vast province of the
criminal code to charge any defendant before the Court. In the legal
profession, it is a widely held axiom maximum sentences are reserved for
the worst offenders. However, review of maximum sentences is not limited
to just the facts of the crime, but also the corresponding sentencing range
based on the plea presented. Perhaps a different charge, first-degree rape (for
example), would have rendered an excessive sentence argument moot under
the facts of this case.