State of Louisiana v. Jarvarius J. Holden

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: June 5, 2024
• Docket: 55,700-KA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered June 5, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,700-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

JARVARIUS J. HOLDEN Appellant

Appealed from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2233032

Honorable Amy Burford McCartney, Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Chad Ikerd

CHARLES BLAYLOCK ADAMS Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

EDWIN L. BLEWER, III ETHAN ARBUCKLE Assistant District Attorneys

Before COX, STEPHENS, and ROBINSON, JJ. ROBINSON, J.

Jarvarius Holden (“Holden”) entered a guilty plea for the charge of

one count of possession with intent to distribute schedule II CDS – fentanyl,

which carries a sentencing range of imprisonment at hard labor for not less

than 5 years and not more than 40 years, plus a fine of no more than

$50,000. He was sentenced to 40 years at hard labor, with 10 years

suspended, and 3 years’ supervised probation, with credit for time served.

Holden’s motion for reconsideration of the sentence was denied without a

hearing, and he timely filed a motion for appeal.

For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 9, 2022, Holden was arrested following a traffic stop in

which drugs were found inside the vehicle following a consent search.

There was a strong odor of marijuana and a large clear plastic bag containing

a small amount of a green leafy substance inside in plain view on the front

passenger seat. Holden voluntarily turned over an altered bottle of blue pills

he retrieved from the middle console. He was Mirandized and arrested, and

a search of his vehicle was conducted. The searching officer found several

individual clear bags of what was later determined to be marijuana, a small

clear bag of a white powder substance that was identified by Holden to be

cocaine, three clear plastic bags containing blue pills later identified as

oxycodone, an altered prescription bottle containing Promethazine, a clear

plastic bag containing over $15,000 in cash, and a digital scale.

There were over 728 of the blue pills with the letters “M30” printed

on them. Police believed the pills to be oxycodone after using a drug

database to look up what the pills were. However, after the crime lab later ran tests on the pills, it was determined that some included ANPP and

fentanyl. The testing sample of 10 units indicated that 39.1% of the

suspected oxycodone pills contained fentanyl. Holden denied knowing

whether the fentanyl in question in this case was in fact fentanyl when he

possessed it.

Holden was released on bond at his 72-hour hearing. He was charged

by bill of information on November 15, 2022, with one count of possession

with intent to distribute schedule I CDS – marijuana, less than 2½ pounds;

one count of possession with intent to distribute schedule II CDS –

oxycodone, more than 28 grams; and possession of schedule II CDS –

cocaine, two grams or more, but less than 28 grams. Holden was arraigned

and entered a plea of not guilty on November 30, 2022.

The State filed an amended bill of information on February 3, 2023, to

amend the oxycodone count to allege the drug was fentanyl and 4-ANPP.

After Holden failed to appear at his February 6, status conference, a bench

warrant was issued for his arrest. On February 14, he was arrested for a

bench warrant after a traffic stop. In February, an investigation took place in

Sabine Parish regarding Holden’s suspected drug operations and he was

charged with various drug charges. He was also charged with domestic

battery of a juvenile. Those charges are currently pending.

Holden entered a guilty plea on March 13, 2023, for the charge of one

count of possession with intent to distribute schedule II CDS – fentanyl,

which carries a sentencing range of imprisonment at hard labor for not less

than 5 years and not more than 40 years, plus a fine of no more than

$50,000. The charges of possession with intent to distribute a schedule I

CDS and possession of a schedule II CDS two grams or more, but less than 2 28 grams – cocaine, were dismissed as part of the plea agreement. A PSI

was ordered.

The State introduced medical testimony as to the dangers of fentanyl,

its comparison to other drugs, and the significant increase in fentanyl

overdoses and deaths. There was also testimony regarding the pending

charges in Sabine Parish, confirming that multiple forms of narcotics had

been seized during the course of that investigation. Holden and his family

testified on his behalf at his sentencing hearing. His two-year-old son’s

mother, as well as his sister, testified that he was financially supporting his

son and tried to see him nearly every day. Holden testified that he was

gainfully employed prior to his incarceration and that he always held a job

and tried to work 40 hours a week or more. He also claimed to have no

knowledge that the drugs he possessed contained fentanyl.

After several sentencing hearings were rescheduled to correct

information in the PSI, Holden was sentenced to 40 years at hard labor, with

10 years suspended, and 3 years’ probation, with credit for time served.1

Holden orally objected to the sentence as excessive, then filed a written

motion to reconsider the sentence, alleging that the court did not give proper

weight and consideration to certain mitigating factors, which was denied

without a hearing. Holden timely appealed the trial court’s sentence.

DISCUSSION

Holden argues that even though the trial court suspended the final 10

years of his sentence of 40 years at hard labor and allowed for 3 years’

probation, the sentence nonetheless shocks the conscience and did not take

1 The minute entry from the June 14, 2023, sentencing hearing incorrectly showed the sentence as “TEN (40) Years, with TEN (10) Years suspended,” which is presumed to be a typographical error since all other sentencing references in the record are correct. 3 into consideration the mitigating factors of his case. He claims that the facts

of this case do not make him the “worst of the worst” fentanyl drug dealer,

and should not have received a near-maximum sentence.

Appellate courts employ a two prong test when reviewing an

excessive sentence claim: (1) the trial record must demonstrate that the trial

court complied with the guidelines in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 (list of

sentencing factors); and (2) the appellate court must determine if the

sentence is constitutionally excessive. State v. Ladd, 14-1611 (La. 3/27/15),

164 So. 3d 184 (per curiam).

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.

Duncan, 53,194 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/15/20), 290 So. 3d 251. 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, 419 So. 2d 475 (La. 1982); 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. Important elements to be considered are

the defendant’s personal history (age, family ties, marital status, health,

employment record), prior criminal record, seriousness of the offense, and

likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049 (La. 1981);

State v. DeBerry, supra. There is no requirement that specific matters be

given particular weight at sentencing. State v. DeBerry, supra; 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.

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 4 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);

State v. Bell, 53,712 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/13/21), 310 So. 3d 307; State v.

Jackson, 51,575 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/17), 244 So. 3d 764. 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. DeBerry,

supra; State v. Modisette, 50,846 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/28/16), 207 So. 3d 1108.

As a general rule, maximum or near-maximum sentences are reserved for

the worst offenders and the worst offenses. State v. Cozzetto, 07-2031 (La.

2/15/08), 974 So. 2d 665; State v. Gibson, 54,400 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/25/22),

338 So. 3d 1260, writ denied, 22-00978 (La. 3/7/23), 356 So. 3d 1053.

Trial courts have wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within

the statutory limits and such sentences should not be set aside as excessive in

the absence of a manifest abuse of that discretion. State v. Trotter, 54,496

(La. App. 2 Cir. 6/29/22), 342 So. 3d 1116; 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. Bell, supra.

In its sentencing, the trial court specifically referenced the applicable

aggravating factors pursuant to La. C. Cr. P. 894.1. It determined that there

was an undue risk that Holden would commit another crime during a period

of a suspended sentence or probation and that a lesser sentence would

deprecate the seriousness of the crime. It further noted that Holden created a

risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person through the

intended distribution and handling of deadly fentanyl. The Court stated that 5 Holden received a substantial benefit from his guilty plea, as he was

originally charged with multiple felony counts. It did not specifically

reference any mitigating factors considered.

Holden’s sentence is well supported by the record and the trial court

adequately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors. The only

disputed fact in the case was whether Holden knew that some of the drugs he

was selling contained fentanyl. This is hardly a defense to the charge, or

even a mitigating factor, when there is significant evidence of other multiple

drug transactions, including those involving fentanyl – especially when

compared to the extensive risks and dangers of fentanyl use.

Holden’s 40-year sentence, with 10 years suspended, for conviction of

one count of possession with intent to distribute schedule II CDS (fentanyl),

was well within the sentencing range – imprisonment at hard labor for not

less than 5 years and not more than 40 years, plus a fine of no more than

$50,000. Holden significantly reduced his sentencing exposure by pleading

guilty and the 10-year suspension of sentence resulted in an overall sentence

that would not be considered “near maximum.”

The trial court’s imposition of the sentence was not shocking to the

sense of justice or a needless infliction of pain and suffering, and was not an

abuse of its discretion. Accordingly, we find that Holden’s sentence of 40

years at hard labor, with 10 years suspended, and 3 years’ supervised

probation, with credit for time served, is affirmed.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated hereinabove, Holden’s sentence is hereby

AFFIRMED.