State Of Louisiana v. Jayden Vongchanh

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 27, 2024
• Docket: 2024KA0369
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2024 KA 0369

VERSUS

JAYDEN VONGCHANH

Judgment Rendered: MEMO

On Appeal from the 16th Judicial District Court

In and for the Parish of St. Mary State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 2023212306

Honorable Curtis Sigur, Judge Presiding

M. Bofill Duh6 Attorneys for Appellee, District Attorney State of Louisiana W. Claire Howington Assistant District Attorney New Iberia, LA

Walter J. Senette, Jr. Assistant District Attorney Franklin, LA

Gwendolyn K. Brown Attorney for Defendant -Appellant, Baton Rouge, LA Jayden Vongchanh

BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND RESTER, JJ. HESTER, J.

The defendant, Jayden Vongchanh, was charged by grand jury indictment as

an adult with second degree murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14: 30. L' The defendant

pled not guilty to the charge. Following a trial by jury, he was found guilty of the

responsive offense of manslaughter.' See La. R. S. 14: 31. Following a sentencing

hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of forty years imprisonment at hard labor.

The defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which the trial court denied

without a hearing. The defendant now appeals, alleging the trial court erred by

imposing an excessive sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the

conviction and sentence.

FACTS

4n the night of December 12, 2020, Liam McDuff, the victim, attended a

party hosted by his neighbor, Christopher Landry. The party was held in a two-story barn on Landry' s father' s property in Iberia Parish. The lower level of the barn had

a big open arena with stalls and storage, and the second level had a loft. Around

1: 00 a. m., a girl approached Landry and informed him that people were throwing

beer bottles on them from the balcony. Landry grabbed a friend and went upstairs

to the second level, where he observed a group of about seven to nine people, which

included the defendant. He instructed the defendant' s group to leave his property and escorted them down the stairs and out of the front of the barn.

As Landry walked the defendant' s group to their cars, several of Landry' s friends began walking with him. There was some distance between the two groups,

and nobody pushed, touched, or threatened the group being escorted out, but Landry

1 The defendant, whose date of birth is September 29, 2005, was fifteen years old at the time of the offense.

2 The defendant' s first trial, which was held in Iberia Parish, ended with a hung jury. Thereafter, the trial court granted the defense' s motion for change of venue and the case was moved to St. Mary Parish.

1) acknowledged his group was probably saying things like " get the hell out of here."

The driver got into the car and did not get back out. However, the defendant got into

the front passenger side of the vehicle, then stepped out and leaned his body over the

roof of the car and swept the crowd from right to left with a gun. As soon as the

defendant swept back, he pulled the trigger and shot Liam in the chest. The

defendant and his friends fled the scene in their car, and Landry called 911. Liam,

the nineteen -year- old victim who was unarmed, died.

Misty Montgomery, a detective with the Iberia Parish Sheriff' s Office, was

dispatched to investigate the shooting. After obtaining a video from a witness who

attended the party, Detective Montgomery identified some of the individuals who

were in the defendant' s group, including Billy Moreau and Richard Perez. After

Moreau was interviewed, she learned the other individuals in the group were Nathan Matula, another male named " Von," Jared Boudreaux, and Brian Vegas Martinez.

Detective Montgomery subsequently learned that " Von" was the defendant, Jayden

Vongchanh, and several witnesses picked him out of a photo lineup and identified him as the individual who had shot Liam. A warrant was issued for the defendant,

and he was subsequently arrested. The defendant did not testify at trial.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

The defendant argues the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence.

Specifically, the defendant alleges the trial court failed to adequately consider the

Article 894. 1 factors when tailoring his sentence. As such, he submits the trial court

erred by denying his motion to reconsider sentence. The assignments of error are

interrelated and are addressed together. The State argues the defendant' s sentence

is not excessive and asserts the trial court gave detailed and thoughtful reasons for

the sentence. The State notes that because the defendant was a juvenile at the time

of the offense, he will be eligible for parole consideration after serving twenty- five years of his sentence pursuant to La. R.S. 15: 574.4( J).

91 The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 20,

of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of cruel or excessive

punishment. Although a sentence falls within statutory limits, it may be excessive.

See State v. Sepulvado, 367 So. 2d 762, 767 ( La. 1979). A sentence is considered

constitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the

offense or is nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and

suffering. State v. Shaikh, 2016- 0750 ( La. 10/ 18/ 17), 236 So. 3d 1206, 1209 (per

curiam). A sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and

punishment are considered in light of the harm done to society, it shocks one' s sense

ofjustice. State v. Livous, 2018- 0016 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 24/ 18), 259 So. 3d 1036,

1044, writ denied, 2018- 1788 ( La. 4/ 15/ 19), 267 So. 3d 1130.

The trial court has great discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory

limits, and such a sentence will not be set aside as excessive in the absence of an

abuse of discretion. State v. Scott, 2017- 0209 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 15/ 17), 228 So. 3d

207, 211, writ denied, 2017- 1743 ( La. 8/ 31/ 18), 251 So. 3d 410. Louisiana Code of

Criminal Procedure article 894. 1 sets forth the factors for the trial court to consider

before imposing sentence. While the entire checklist of Article 894. 1 need not be

recited, the record must reflect the trial court adequately considered the criteria. See

State v. Brown, 2002- 2231 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 5/ 9/ 03), 849 So. 2d 566, 569. A review

for individual excessiveness should consider the circumstances of the crime and the

trial court' s stated reasons and factual basis for its sentencing decision. Brown, 849

So. 2d at 569.

The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of Article 894. 1,

not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions. 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 Article 894. 1. State v. Lanclos,

419 So. 2d 475, 478 ( La. 1982); Scott, 228 So. 3d at 211. The trial court' s

M considerations should be based upon factual determinations and include a review of

the defendant' s personal history, his prior criminal record, the seriousness of the

offense, the likelihood that he will commit another crime, and his potential for

rehabilitation through correctional services other than confinement. See State v.

Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049, 1051- 52 ( La. 1981); State v. Spikes, 2017- 0087 ( La. App.

1st Cir. 9/ 15/ 17), 228 So. 3d 201, 204- 05. On appellate review of a sentence, the

relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion,

not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate. State v. Thomas,

98- 1144 ( La. 10/ 9/ 98), 719 So.2d 49, 50 ( pet" curiam); State v. Anderson, 2022-

0587 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 22/ 22), 357 So. 3d 845, 852, writ denied, 2023- 00352 (La.

9/ 6/ 23), 369 So. 3d 1267.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14: 31( B) provides: "[ w] hoever commits

manslaughter shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than forty years." Here,

the trial court imposed the maximum sentence of forty years, which is within the

statutory limits. Prior to sentencing the defendant, the trial court heard impact

statements from the victim' s father Jim McDuff, who testified regarding how this

crime has affected him and his family.3 Mr. McDuff testified his son was the light

of their family, that he was so full of life and very fun. He said with his son gone, it

has been terrible, "[ w] e have just been decimated." Mr. McDuff asked the trial court

to impose a forty -year sentence and requested that the court run the sentence

consecutive to the defendant' s sentences for his convictions in two other, unrelated

cases. 4 Alice McDuff, the victim' s mother, also made a statement. She said her son

was loved by everybody, and she described the effect his death has had on his family

3 Mr. McDuff indicated his son was a sophomore at LSU and had made the honor roll all three semesters, an accomplishment of which his son was very proud. On the night of the shooting, he and his wife were summoned to the hospital at 2: 00 a.m., but due to COVID, they had to wait outside and were unable to see their son before he died.

4 As noted later in this opinion, the defendant had two other felony convictions for which he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

5 and friends, especially the friends that witnessed his death. She said it has been

terrible dealing with her son' s death. Leon J. Minville, III, a lifelong friend of the

McDuffs, discussed what a wonderful person Liam was and said his death has been

a crushing blow to the McDuffs. He asked the court to impose the maximum

sentence.

At the sentencing hearing, the defendant apologized to the victim' s family for

the pain he caused them and asked for forgiveness. He asked the court to give him

a second chance. After the impact statements, the trial court reviewed the facts of

the case and noted it was not necessary for the defendant to shoot an unarmed man.

The court stated: " I strongly believe that [ the defendant] was somewhat trigger

happy, and was looking for a reason to shoot someone." The court noted that it was

only after the defendant fired the bullet into the victim' s chest that he and his friends

got into the car and fled the scene. The court found if they were able to leave after

the shooting, they could have left before the victim was shot. The court also found

that when the defendant shot the victim, he put the lives of other individuals in

jeopardy, as the bullet could have hit someone else.

The court noted that after Liam was shot, and while he was lying in the

hospital where they were trying to save his life, the defendant posted a photo of

himself smoking something with two handguns on his lap, under the caption:

Smoking on dead op. Laughed my A off. Life is hard." The trial court learned the

caption meant smoking on a " dead opponent." The trial court said this photo spoke

a thousand words and showed the defendant had no remorse for having killed someone. The only mitigating factor the trial court found was the defendant' s age.

The record reflects the trial court took the Article 894. 1 factors into

consideration when imposing the sentence in this case. Specifically, the trial court

noted it believed there is an undue risk that during the period of a suspended sentence

or probation the defendant will commit another crime and he needs correctional

on treatment or a custodial environment that can be provided most effectively by his

commitment to an institution. The trial court found a lesser sentence would

deprecate the seriousness of the defendant' s crime. The trial court further noted the

defendant: ( 1) knowingly created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than

one person, ( 2) used actual violence in the commission of the offense, ( 3) used a

dangerous weapon in the commission of the offense, and (4) that his conduct during

the commission of the offense manifested deliberate cruelty to the victim.

The trial court reviewed the results of the presentence investigation report and

found very troubling the defendant' s criminal history, which included three juvenile

convictions for crimes of violence.' Specifically, he was convicted of first degree

robbery of a fellow student at New Iberia Senior High School and was sentenced to

three years at hard labor. The defendant used a knife to commit the robbery.

Following the death of Liam, the defendant was convicted of second degree battery,

and he was sentenced to one year imprisonment. The battery occurred at the juvenile

facility where he was being housed. Additionally, the court noted the defendant had

other arrests for which there were no convictions, including curfew violations, theft

of a cell phone, and simple burglary during which some weapons were taken.

Maximum sentences may be imposed for the most serious offenses and the

worst offenders, or when the offender poses an unusual risk to the public safety due

to his past conduct of repeated criminality. State v. Albarado, 2003- 2504 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 25/ 04), 878 So. 2d 849, 852, writ denied, 2004- 2231 ( La. 1/ 28/ 05), 893

So. 2d 70. The trial court stated it strongly believed the defendant is a danger to

society and our community. In its reasons for sentencing the defendant, the trial

court fully considered the Article 894. 1 factors, the seriousness and nature of the

crime, and the defendant' s background. The record provides sufficient justification

5 The results of the presentence investigation report were placed under seal. 7 for the imposition of the sentence. Given the foregoing, we find no abuse of

discretion by the trial court in sentencing the defendant to the maximum sentence of

forty years. Accordingly, the sentence imposed is not grossly disproportionate to

the severity of the offense and, therefore, is not unconstitutionally excessive. Thus,

the trial court did not err by denying the motion to reconsider sentence. These

assignments of error are without merit.

Pursuant to La. Code Crim. P. art. 920( 2), this court routinely conducts a

review of all appeals for error discoverable by mere inspection of the pleadings and

proceedings and without inspection of the evidence. State v. Anthony, 2023- 0117

La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 3/ 23), 378 So. 3d 766, 775, writ denied, 2024- 00027 ( La.

5/ 21/ 24), 385 So. 3d 242. After a careful review of the record, we have found one

patent error. The record reflects the trial court advised the defendant: " you have a

period of two years to file for post -conviction relief, and that two year period begins

to run when your sentence becomes final."

A defendant generally has two years after the " judgment of conviction and

sentence" has become final to seek post -conviction relief. La. Code Crim. P. art.

930. 8( A). Thus, the trial court provided incomplete advice regarding the

prescriptive period for seeking post -conviction relief. However, the trial court' s

failure to properly advise the defendant has no bearing on the sentence and is not

grounds to reverse the sentence or remand for resentencing. See State v. LeBoeuf,

2006- 0153 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 15/ 06), 943 So. 2d 1134, 1142- 43, writ denied, 2006-

2621 ( La. 8/ 15/ 07), 961 So. 2d 1158. Accordingly, this error is not reversible, and

we decline to remand for resentencing.

Out of an abundance of caution and in the interest of judicial economy, we

advise the defendant that La. Code Crim. P. art. 930. 8( A) generally provides 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 has become final under the provisions of La. Code Crim.

P. arts. 914 or 922. LeBoeuf, 943 So.2d at 1143.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.

M