State of Louisiana v. Jaroderick Harper

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 18, 2024
• Docket: 56,060-KA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered December 18, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,060-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

JARODERICK HARPER Appellant

Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 388,840

Honorable Christopher T. Victory, Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Edward K. Bauman

JARODERICK HARPER Pro Se

JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

VICTORIA T. WASHINGTON TOMMY J. JOHNSON Assistant District Attorneys

Before PITMAN, STEPHENS, and MARCOTTE, JJ. MARCOTTE, J.

This criminal appeal arises from the First Judicial District Court,

Parish of Caddo, the Honorable Chris Victory presiding. Defendant,

Jaroderick Harper, was convicted of molestation of a juvenile under the age

of 13 in violation of La. R.S. 14:81.2(A)(1),(D)(1). Harper was sentenced to

60 years’ imprisonment at hard labor, with at least 25 years of that sentence

to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

Harper now appeals, arguing that his sentence of 60 years is constitutionally

excessive and that the trial court imposed an indeterminate sentence by

ordering that “at least” 25 years be served without benefits. For the

following reasons, we affirm defendant’s conviction but vacate his sentence

and remand the case for resentencing.

FACTS

The case involves sexual molestation of a ten-year-old girl, Z.S., by a

thirty-year-old man, Harper, on January 16, 2022.1 The incident occurred

when Harper was entrusted with the care of Z.S. while her mother,

LaCharlotte Singleton, was away from home. The police arrived at Ms.

Singleton’s home on the night of the incident. After they spoke with all

parties, Harper was released and arrested three months later in Bossier

Parish.

The state filed a bill of information on May 19, 2022, charging Harper

with molestation of a juvenile under the age of 13 in violation of La. R.S.

14:81.2(A)(1),(D)(1).

1 La. R.S. 46:1844(W) prohibits the public disclosure of the names, addresses, or identities of crime victims under the age of eighteen and of all victims of sex offenses but, instead, authorizes the use of initials and abbreviations. Accordingly, the juvenile victim here will be referred to by her initials, Z.S. A jury trial was held on September 19-20, 2023, where the following

evidence was adduced. On the night of January 16, 2022, Z.S. was living

with her mother, Ms. Singleton, younger brother, and Ms. Singleton’s

boyfriend, Harper, whom the children referred to as “Dad” or “Bird.” Ms.

Singleton left home that night at 11:00 p.m. to attend a wedding party. She

testified that she asked Harper if he would watch the children, which

included her sister’s two daughters. Harper testified he was cutting trees by

the pond and was never informed he would be watching the children.

While at the wedding party, Ms. Singleton received a text from Z.S.

stating, “Mama, I got to tell you something.” Ms. Singleton left the party

and drove home. Upon arriving home, Ms. Singleton said she spoke to her

daughter alone, and her daughter told her that “Bird” touched her. Ms.

Singleton then spoke to Harper, who claimed Z.S. was lying. Believing her

daughter, Ms. Singleton called the police.

A video statement Z.S. gave at the Gingerbread House in January

2022 was played for the jury. In the video, Z.S. describes how Harper

showed her a pornographic video, placed her on a bed, put her legs over his

shoulders, and attempted to kiss her on her face, cheeks, and private area.

Z.S. kicked him to make him stop. At the time, Harper was 30 years of age

and Z.S. was 10. Z.S. confirmed that everything she said in her video

statement was true, and she identified Harper in the courtroom.

Harper denied ever having touched Z.S. inappropriately. He testified

that Ms. Singleton arranged for Z.S. to claim she was molested. Harper said

that he caught Ms. Singleton having sex with another man and claimed that

she and her daughter concocted this story so as to “get [him] out of the

way.” 2 The jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict.

On November 29, 2023, Harper was sentenced. The court asked

about mitigating factors, to which Harper’s counsel responded in the

negative. Harper declined to speak before sentencing.

The trial court notified Harper of the time limitations regarding his

right to file a motion to reconsider sentence, a motion for appeal, and to seek

post-conviction relief. The trial court then sentenced him as follows:

Based on the criminal history and the aggravating factors, the court sentences Mr. Harper to sixty years at hard labor, six zero. At least twenty-five years will be without the benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence pursuant to the statute.

Harper filed a motion to reconsider sentence on December 21, 2023,

which was denied on January 5, 2024.

Harper now appeals.

DISCUSSION

Harper’s sole assignment of error on appeal is that the trial court

imposed a constitutionally excessive sentence. Because we find an error

patent requiring remand of the case for resentencing, Harper’s assignment of

error is moot.

Error Patent

Both sides note that there is an error patent on the face of the record

requiring remand to the trial court for resentencing, and we agree. La. R.S.

14:81.2(D)(1) provides that whoever commits the crime of molestation of a

juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13 shall be imprisoned at hard

labor for not less than 25 years nor more than 99 years. At least 25 years of

the sentence imposed shall be served without benefit of probation, parole, or

suspension of sentence. 3 A trial court is required to impose a determinate sentence. La. C. Cr.

P. art. 879. In State v. Cole, 55,172 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/9/23), 370 So. 3d

106, this court held that using the term “at least” in sentencing failed to

convey a specific length of time.

Here, the sentencing colloquy indicates that the trial court imposed a

sentence of “sixty years at hard labor, six zero. At least 25 years will be

without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence pursuant to

the statute.” (Emphasis added.) In ordering that “at least” 25 years of the

sentence be served without benefits, the trial court failed to convey a specific

length of time, making Harper’s sentence indeterminate. Accordingly, we

remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

CONCLUSION

Harper’s conviction is affirmed. His sentence is vacated, and his case

is remanded for resentencing.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.