Judgment rendered May 10, 2023. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,046-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
VERSUS
JAE’LYON JAVONTE Appellant DERION WARE
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 362,655
Honorable John Mosely, Jr., Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Mary Constance Hanes
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
WILLIAM J. EDWARDS REBECCA A. EDWARDS Assistant District Attorneys
Before STONE, COX, and STEPHENS, JJ. STEPHENS, J.
This criminal appeal arises out of the First Judicial District Court,
Parish of Caddo, State of Louisiana, the Honorable John Mosely, Jr.,
presiding. Defendant, Jae’lyon Javonte Derion Ware, pled guilty to
manslaughter, a violation of La. R.S. 14:31, pursuant to a plea agreement
which capped his potential sentence at 20 years. Thereafter, the trial court
sentenced Ware to 20 years’ imprisonment at hard labor, to run concurrently
with any other sentence he would be required to serve, and with credit for
time served. Ware has appealed, urging the excessiveness of his 20-year
sentence. For the reason set forth below, we affirm Ware’s conviction and
sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 3, 2018, Ware and three other young males, Demarea
Jefferson, A.M., and L.P.,1 arrived at the Woodlawn Terrace apartment
complex located at 717 West 68th Street in Shreveport, Louisiana. Jefferson
placed a call to order a pizza, and the men planned to rob the delivery person
who arrived with their order. After the call was made, Ware exited the
vehicle in which the men were waiting and walked around the apartment
complex. Ware attempted to rob an older man he encountered but was
unsuccessful because the intended victim was able to escape. Ware returned
to his friends waiting in the parking lot and told them of his encounter.
When the pizza delivery person arrived with their order, the men
believed him to be the person Ware had tried to rob earlier, and fired shots at
the delivery vehicle. The victim, Lester McGee, who was driving the
1 A.M. and L.P. were juveniles. delivery car, was killed by two of the shots fired by the men. Ware was
armed with a 9-mm handgun, and the fatal shots were consistent with having
been fired from an assault rifle which was used by either Jefferson or A.M.
Ware fired at least three shots from his weapon into the air after returning to
the scene although he initially fled when his accomplices opened fire.
On February 14, 2019, a Caddo Parish grand jury indicted Ware for
second degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. On August 23, 2021,
the State amended the indictment to charge him with manslaughter, a
violation of La. R.S. 14:31. On that date, Ware pled guilty to manslaughter
pursuant to a plea agreement with an agreed-upon sentencing cap of 20
years. During the guilty plea colloquy, after determining Ware’s age and
education level, the trial court advised Ware of his rights and explained that
by pleading guilty, he would be waiving those rights. Ware stated that he
understood, and the prosecutor recounted a factual basis for the plea. The
trial court then ordered a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) report and
scheduled a hearing for March 2, 2022.
At the sentencing hearing, several people testified, including the
victim’s mother, who related that at the time of his death, her son was
working two jobs to provide a good Christmas for his children. She further
explained that her son was a “wonderful, kind, hardworking, dedicated”
person. Along with character references submitted into the record on behalf
of Ware, the defendant himself testified. Of note is that he gave condolences
to the victim’s family.
The trial court stated it had considered the evidence presented at the
hearing, the briefs filed by the State and Ware’s counsel, and the letters
submitted on Ware’s behalf. The trial court further recognized Ware’s 2 expression of remorse for what had taken place. The court listed
aggravating factors it considered, including that Ware was charged with
another robbery in Bossier Parish that occurred shortly after the instant
offense; pictures of Ware holding weapons, which were proof of his
possession of firearms on at least two different occasions; and Ware’s
propensity for danger.
The trial court then recognized the plea agreement and opined that its
sentencing cap of 20 years resulted from its belief that “the State was put in
that position to—because of a witness that I believe escaped and cannot be
found. The defense did an excellent job in working out a deal for the
defendant.” The trial judge strongly believed that the defendant would
commit another crime should a lesser sentence be imposed, and for that
reason, he sentenced Ware to 20 years’ imprisonment at hard labor to run
concurrently with any other sentence he is required to serve. The trial court
also stated that Ware was to be given credit for any time served.
At that time, the trial court advised Ware that he had 30 days in which
to appeal his sentence and two years from the date his sentence and
conviction become final within which to apply for post-conviction relief.
Defense counsel objected to the sentencing range “to cover his bases”
because “this was somewhat of an agreed-upon sentence.” Although no
motion to reconsider sentence was filed, defendant has appealed his sentence
as excessive.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s sole assignment of error is that his 20-year sentence for
manslaughter, although consistent with his plea agreement, is nonetheless
excessive under the circumstances of this case. Specifically, Ware argues 3 that he was only 16 years old at the time of this offense, was not the
ringleader who decided to rob the victim, and was not the person who fired
the fatal shot that killed the victim. According to Ware, rather than treating
him as an individual, the trial court focused on the offense.
The State argues that, because defendant’s sentence was imposed in
conformity with the sentencing cap set forth on the record at the time of his
plea, Ware cannot appeal his sentence as excessive. See, La. C. Cr. P. art.
881.2(A)(2). However, even if this Court were to consider the 20-year
sentence for excessiveness, the State asserts that the record supports the
sentence imposed. The record shows that the trial court set forth its
considerations in support of the sentence it imposed upon Ware, which is not
excessive by constitutional standards.
La. R.S. 14:31 provides in part:
A. Manslaughter is:
(3) When the offender commits or attempts to commit any crime of violence as defined by R.S. 14:2(B), which is part of a continuous sequence of events resulting in the death of a human being where it was foreseeable that the offender’s conduct during the commission of the crime could result in death or great bodily harm to a human being, even if the offender has no intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. For purposes of this Paragraph, it shall be immaterial whether or not the person who performed the direct act resulting in the death was acting in concert with the offender.
B.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered May 10, 2023. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,046-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
VERSUS
JAE’LYON JAVONTE Appellant DERION WARE
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 362,655
Honorable John Mosely, Jr., Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Mary Constance Hanes
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
WILLIAM J. EDWARDS REBECCA A. EDWARDS Assistant District Attorneys
Before STONE, COX, and STEPHENS, JJ. STEPHENS, J.
This criminal appeal arises out of the First Judicial District Court,
Parish of Caddo, State of Louisiana, the Honorable John Mosely, Jr.,
presiding. Defendant, Jae’lyon Javonte Derion Ware, pled guilty to
manslaughter, a violation of La. R.S. 14:31, pursuant to a plea agreement
which capped his potential sentence at 20 years. Thereafter, the trial court
sentenced Ware to 20 years’ imprisonment at hard labor, to run concurrently
with any other sentence he would be required to serve, and with credit for
time served. Ware has appealed, urging the excessiveness of his 20-year
sentence. For the reason set forth below, we affirm Ware’s conviction and
sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 3, 2018, Ware and three other young males, Demarea
Jefferson, A.M., and L.P.,1 arrived at the Woodlawn Terrace apartment
complex located at 717 West 68th Street in Shreveport, Louisiana. Jefferson
placed a call to order a pizza, and the men planned to rob the delivery person
who arrived with their order. After the call was made, Ware exited the
vehicle in which the men were waiting and walked around the apartment
complex. Ware attempted to rob an older man he encountered but was
unsuccessful because the intended victim was able to escape. Ware returned
to his friends waiting in the parking lot and told them of his encounter.
When the pizza delivery person arrived with their order, the men
believed him to be the person Ware had tried to rob earlier, and fired shots at
the delivery vehicle. The victim, Lester McGee, who was driving the
1 A.M. and L.P. were juveniles. delivery car, was killed by two of the shots fired by the men. Ware was
armed with a 9-mm handgun, and the fatal shots were consistent with having
been fired from an assault rifle which was used by either Jefferson or A.M.
Ware fired at least three shots from his weapon into the air after returning to
the scene although he initially fled when his accomplices opened fire.
On February 14, 2019, a Caddo Parish grand jury indicted Ware for
second degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. On August 23, 2021,
the State amended the indictment to charge him with manslaughter, a
violation of La. R.S. 14:31. On that date, Ware pled guilty to manslaughter
pursuant to a plea agreement with an agreed-upon sentencing cap of 20
years. During the guilty plea colloquy, after determining Ware’s age and
education level, the trial court advised Ware of his rights and explained that
by pleading guilty, he would be waiving those rights. Ware stated that he
understood, and the prosecutor recounted a factual basis for the plea. The
trial court then ordered a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) report and
scheduled a hearing for March 2, 2022.
At the sentencing hearing, several people testified, including the
victim’s mother, who related that at the time of his death, her son was
working two jobs to provide a good Christmas for his children. She further
explained that her son was a “wonderful, kind, hardworking, dedicated”
person. Along with character references submitted into the record on behalf
of Ware, the defendant himself testified. Of note is that he gave condolences
to the victim’s family.
The trial court stated it had considered the evidence presented at the
hearing, the briefs filed by the State and Ware’s counsel, and the letters
submitted on Ware’s behalf. The trial court further recognized Ware’s 2 expression of remorse for what had taken place. The court listed
aggravating factors it considered, including that Ware was charged with
another robbery in Bossier Parish that occurred shortly after the instant
offense; pictures of Ware holding weapons, which were proof of his
possession of firearms on at least two different occasions; and Ware’s
propensity for danger.
The trial court then recognized the plea agreement and opined that its
sentencing cap of 20 years resulted from its belief that “the State was put in
that position to—because of a witness that I believe escaped and cannot be
found. The defense did an excellent job in working out a deal for the
defendant.” The trial judge strongly believed that the defendant would
commit another crime should a lesser sentence be imposed, and for that
reason, he sentenced Ware to 20 years’ imprisonment at hard labor to run
concurrently with any other sentence he is required to serve. The trial court
also stated that Ware was to be given credit for any time served.
At that time, the trial court advised Ware that he had 30 days in which
to appeal his sentence and two years from the date his sentence and
conviction become final within which to apply for post-conviction relief.
Defense counsel objected to the sentencing range “to cover his bases”
because “this was somewhat of an agreed-upon sentence.” Although no
motion to reconsider sentence was filed, defendant has appealed his sentence
as excessive.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s sole assignment of error is that his 20-year sentence for
manslaughter, although consistent with his plea agreement, is nonetheless
excessive under the circumstances of this case. Specifically, Ware argues 3 that he was only 16 years old at the time of this offense, was not the
ringleader who decided to rob the victim, and was not the person who fired
the fatal shot that killed the victim. According to Ware, rather than treating
him as an individual, the trial court focused on the offense.
The State argues that, because defendant’s sentence was imposed in
conformity with the sentencing cap set forth on the record at the time of his
plea, Ware cannot appeal his sentence as excessive. See, La. C. Cr. P. art.
881.2(A)(2). However, even if this Court were to consider the 20-year
sentence for excessiveness, the State asserts that the record supports the
sentence imposed. The record shows that the trial court set forth its
considerations in support of the sentence it imposed upon Ware, which is not
excessive by constitutional standards.
La. R.S. 14:31 provides in part:
A. Manslaughter is:
(3) When the offender commits or attempts to commit any crime of violence as defined by R.S. 14:2(B), which is part of a continuous sequence of events resulting in the death of a human being where it was foreseeable that the offender’s conduct during the commission of the crime could result in death or great bodily harm to a human being, even if the offender has no intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. For purposes of this Paragraph, it shall be immaterial whether or not the person who performed the direct act resulting in the death was acting in concert with the offender.
B. Whoever commits manslaughter shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than forty years[.]
La. C. Cr. P. art. 881.2(A)(2) provides that the defendant cannot
appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea
agreement which was set forth in the record at the time of the plea. This rule
applies to sentences imposed under an agreed sentencing cap as well as
sentences for an agreed-upon term of years. State v. Young, 96-0195 (La. 4 10/15/96), 680 So. 2d 1171; State v. Willis, 52,126 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/15/18),
253 So. 3d 915; State v. Thomas, 51,364 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/17/17), 223 So.
3d 125, writ denied, 17-1049 (La. 3/9/18), 238 So. 3d 450; State v. Smith,
49,163 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/25/14), 145 So. 3d 1097.
As noted above, Ware pled guilty with a sentence cap of 20 years, and
the sentence imposed, although at the upper limit of the agreed-upon range,
is in conformity with the plea agreement. Thus, he is precluded from
seeking review of his sentence. State v. Young, supra; State v. Willis, supra.
Nonetheless, Ware’s sentence is neither grossly out of proportion to
the severity of the crime nor a purposeless and needless infliction of pain
and suffering. La. Const. art. I, § 20; State v. Dorthey, 623 So. 2d 1276 (La.
1993); State v. Bonanno, 384 So. 2d 355 (La. 1980). In this case, as noted
above, although recognizing the youthful defendant’s remorse and
condolences to the family of the victim, the trial court felt strongly that the
defendant would commit another crime should a lesser sentence be imposed.
As such, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing
this sentence.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the conviction and sentence of
defendant, Jae’lyon Javonte Derion Ware, are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.