State of Louisiana v. Contravious Patterson

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 26, 2025
• Docket: 56,070-KA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered February 26, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,070-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

CONTRAVIOUS PATTERSON Appellant

Appealed from the Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of Claiborne, Louisiana Trial Court No. 33,847

Honorable Walter E. May, Jr., Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Peggy J. Sullivan

CONTRAVIOUS PATTERSON Pro Se

DANIEL W. NEWELL Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

DANIEL N. BAYS, JR. JAMES HENRY COLVIN, JR. P. NELSON SMITH, JR. Assistant District Attorneys

Before PITMAN, STONE, and ROBINSON, JJ. PITMAN, C. J.

Defendant Contravious Patterson was convicted of aggravated battery

and now appeals his sentence of 15 years at hard labor, which was enhanced

because he was adjudicated a second felony habitual offender. For the

following reasons, we affirm the sentence but amend to impose the sentence

without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence and with instructions

concerning post-conviction relief.

FACTS

On February 22, 2021, Defendant was charged with aggravated

second degree battery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:34.7, in that on

December 22, 2021, he did intentionally inflict serious bodily harm upon

Darrell Patterson with a dangerous weapon, i.e., a knife. In May 2023, the

state filed an amended bill and corrected the date of the incident to

December 4, 2021.

In April 2023, the state informed the trial court that Defendant was

offered two different plea bargain agreements and rejected both. The state

advised that Defendant had two other felony convictions within the

cleansing period of the habitual offender statute and noted that it would be

filing an amended bill to enhance the sentence. The trial court informed

Defendant that the rejection of the plea bargain agreements could result in a

sentence of 15 years or more if found guilty at trial. Defendant stated that he

understood, and the trial was set.

A six-person jury was seated. Patterson, the victim, testified that on

December 4, 2021, he attended a birthday party at the home of his sister,

Amanda, in Claiborne Parish. Defendant is Amanda’s son. He stated that

he was outside cooking when Defendant, without provocation, rushed up behind him and grabbed him. He pushed Defendant off and then noticed

that he had been “stuck” in the upper left shoulder in the back. After he was

told he was bleeding, he saw a knife with a black handle that looked like one

used at the chicken processing plant. An ambulance arrived and took him to

the hospital in Shreveport.

Defendant was found guilty of the responsive verdict of aggravated

battery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:34, on May 16, 2023. On May 23, 2023,

the state filed an amended bill of information to adjudicate him a second

felony habitual offender as set forth in La. R.S. 15:529.1. The state charged

that in addition to his conviction for aggravated battery, he had been

previously charged in Webster Parish, criminal docket number 91,633, with

aggravated battery and simple robbery. On August 29, 2016, he pled guilty

to the amended charge of second degree battery, a violation of La.

R.S. 14:34.1. He was sentenced to five years at hard labor, with all but six

months suspended, and was placed on five years of active supervised

probation and ordered to pay restitution. That probation was revoked on

July 2, 2018, a period of less than five years before the date of the

commission of the current offense or expiration of the correctional

supervision for the previous conviction.

Defendant filed a “Motion for New Trial in Arrest of Judgment” and a

“Motion for Post Verdict Judgment of Acquittal.” Both motions were

denied after a hearing on August 8, 2023. Defendant also filed a motion to

quash the habitual offender bill, which was denied.

At the same hearing the trial court considered the habitual offender

charge. The state provided the court with the pertinent record of docket

2 number 91,633 of the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court, including

Defendant’s guilty plea to the charge of second degree battery.

Charles Herman, probation and parole officer in Minden for the State

of Louisiana, testified that he began supervising Defendant on August 3,

2021, after Defendant pled guilty to second degree battery in Webster

Parish. Herman testified to the sentence previously imposed and stated that

Defendant “went off paper” on December 22, 2021, meaning he supervised

him from August 3, 2021, until that date.

Jacqueline Williams appeared for Defendant and explained that she

had raised him, that he was enrolled in special education classes and that he

received supplemental social security income for his disability. She asked

for leniency in his sentencing. A presentence investigation (“PSI”) report

was ordered.

On August 24, 2023, the sentencing hearing was held. The trial court

considered the PSI report, noted all considerations for La. C. Cr. P.

art. 894.1 and gave a detailed explanation of the dates of the earlier crimes

and probation revocation.

The trial court stated that as a second felony offender, Defendant’s

sentence under La. R.S. 15:529.1 was for a determinate term, not less than

one-third of the longest term and not more than twice the longest term

prescribed for a first conviction. The penalty for the crime of aggravated

battery, La. R.S. 14:34, is imprisonment with or without hard labor for not

more than ten years. Thus, Defendant’s sentence in this matter as a second

felony offender was to be not less than 3.33 years nor more than 20 years.

The trial court sentenced Defendant to 15 years at hard labor but

failed to note that as an enhanced sentence it was to be served without 3 benefit of probation or suspension of sentence. Defendant was ordered to

pay a $150 fee for the PSI report upon his release, and the trial court noted

that the sentence was enhanced as a result of his second felony offense. The

PSI report was filed in the record. The trial court did not inform Defendant

of the time limit within which to file for post-conviction relief. A motion to

reconsider sentence was filed but was denied. Defendant appeals his

sentence as excessive.

DISCUSSION

In his sole assignment of error, Defendant argues that the trial court

imposed an excessive sentence. He argues that given the facts and

circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is constitutionally harsh

and is no more than a needless imposition of pain and suffering. Further, he

argues that society receives no benefit from imprisoning him for 15 years.

The state contends that there is no error in the sentencing by the trial

court. The elements of the crime of aggravated battery were proven, and the

enhanced sentence pursuant to the adjudication as a second felony offender

was proper.

An appellate court utilizes a two-pronged test in reviewing a sentence

for excessiveness. 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 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

statute. State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983); State v. Collins, 54,280

(La. App. 2 Cir. 3/9/22), 334 So. 3d 1098. 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. State v. Lanclos, 419 So. 2d 475 4 (La. 1982); State v. Collins, supra. The important elements which should be

considered are the defendant’s personal history (age, family ties, marital

status, health, employment record), prior criminal record, seriousness of the

offense, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049

(La. 1981); State v. Collins, supra. There is no requirement that specific

matters be given any particular weight at sentencing. State v. Shumaker,

41,547 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So. 2d 277, writ denied, 07-0144 (La.

9/28/07), 964 So. 2d 351. 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. State v.

Lanclos, supra; State v. Collins, supra.

Second, the court must determine whether the sentence is

constitutionally 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.

Smith, 01-2574 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So. 2d 1, citing 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. Knight, 54,236 (La. App.

2 Cir. 3/9/22), 335 So. 3d 502, writ denied, 22-00764 (La. 9/7/22),

345 So. 3d 426.

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 5 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.

La. R.S. 14:34(B) states that whoever commits an aggravated battery

shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, imprisoned with or

without hard labor for not more than ten years, or both.

La. R.S. 15:529.1(A) concerns sentences for second and subsequent

offenses and states that any person who, after a previous felony conviction is

convicted of another felony, shall be punished as follows:

If the second felony is such that upon a first conviction the offender would be punishable by imprisonment for any term less than his natural life, then the sentence to imprisonment shall be for a determinate term not less than one-third the longest term and not more than twice the longest term prescribed for a first conviction.

La. R.S. 15:529.1(G) requires a mandatory imposition of a

sentence at hard labor without benefit of probation or suspension of

sentence.

During sentencing, the trial court noted it had reviewed the guidelines

of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and determined no mitigating circumstances were

found. The trial court also reviewed Defendant’s criminal history and noted

that a term of imprisonment at hard labor was appropriate in the case in that

there was an undue risk that he would commit another crime. The trial

court also found Defendant in need of correctional treatment in a custodial

environment and that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of

his crimes. The trial court noted that Defendant had used a dangerous

6 instrument, a knife, in his attack on his victim and that he could have

inflicted great bodily harm.

The trial court’s imposition of 15 years at hard labor was not

excessive and was not an abuse of discretion. The imposition of a 15-year

sentence does not shock the sense of justice and is not constitutionally

excessive. For these reasons, we affirm Defendant’s sentence.

ERRORS PATENT

A review of the record indicates that the trial court failed to impose

the sentence without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence as

required by La. R.S. 15:529.1(G). Although this is mandatory, the error is

harmless and is self-correcting. See State v. Thomas, 52,617 (La. App.

2 Cir. 5/22/19), 272 So. 3d 999, writ denied, 19-01045 (La. 2/10/20),

292 So. 3d 61.

We also note that pursuant to La. C. Cr. P. art. 930.8(C), the trial

court is required to inform Defendant of the limitation period for filing an

application for post-conviction relief. The record shows that the trial court

did not inform Defendant of this limitation period. State v. Leary,

627 So. 2d 777, (La. App. 2 Cir. 1993), writ denied, 635 So. 2d 237 (La.

1994). This defect has no bearing on the sentence and is not grounds to

reverse the sentence or remand the case for resentencing. Id. Defendant is

advised by this opinion that no application for post-conviction relief,

including applications which seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be

considered if it is filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction

and sentence have become final under the provisions of La. C. Cr. P.

arts. 914 and 922. La. C. Cr. P. art. 930.8; State v. Henry, 42,416 (La. App.

7 2 Cir. 9/19/07), 966 So. 2d 692, writ denied sub nom. State ex rel. Henry v.

State, 07-2227 (La. 8/29/08), 989 So. 2d 95.

We order that the minutes of the trial court be corrected to include the

imposition of the sentence being served without benefit of probation or

suspension and the instructions regarding post-conviction relief.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the conviction and sentence of

Defendant Contravious Patterson are affirmed, and his sentence is amended

to be served without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence in

accordance with La. R.S. 15:529.1(G). Further, Defendant is hereby

notified of the two-year time limit within which to seek post-conviction

relief. La. C. Cr. P. art. 930.8(C). The trial court is directed to give the

appellant written notice of the prescriptive period for applying for post-

conviction relief within ten days of the rendition of this opinion and file

proof of Defendant’s receipt of such notice in the record of the proceedings.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE AMENDED AND

AFFIRMED AS AMENDED, WITH INSTRUCTIONS.