Judgment rendered July 16, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 56,307-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
JEFFERY L. CALHOUN Appellant
Appealed from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana Trial Court No. 23CR33480
Honorable Nicholas E. Gasper, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Douglas Lee Harville
CHARLES B. ADAMS Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
EDWIN L. BLEWER, III RHYS E. BURGESS NANCY F. BERGER-SCHNEIDER ETHAN ARBUCKLE Assistant District Attorneys
Before STONE, THOMPSON, and ROBINSON, JJ. THOMPSON, J.
A seasoned and prolific criminal defendant pled guilty to one count of
distribution of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance and one count
of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The defendant was made
aware there was no agreement with the State as to his sentencing, and that
his sentence would be determined by the trial court. After a review of the
defendant’s criminal history and consideration of the facts in present matter,
the trial court sentenced him to ten years on each count, to run consecutively
with each another, for a total of 20 years’ imprisonment. The defendant now
appeals his consecutive sentences as being excessive, arguing that his crimes
arose out of one course of conduct, and consecutive sentences were therefore
not appropriate. We disagree, and affirm the defendant’s guilty plea, amend
his sentence in part to order it served without benefit of probation, parole, or
suspension of sentence, vacate the $1,000 fine and $50 fee imposed pending
a hearing, and hereby remand for that limited purpose.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 25, 2023, a confidential informant working with a local
drug task force in DeSoto Parish purchased crack cocaine from Jeffery L.
Calhoun, a known felon and previously convicted drug dealer. The money
for the purchase was provided by the local drug task force. The amount of
suspected crack cocaine in the transaction was an amount less than 28
grams.
A few days later, on February 28, 2023, based upon probable cause
established by the controlled drug buy, a search warrant was executed at
Calhoun’s home. Two firearms were found in a dresser drawer next to
Calhoun’s bed; his wallet and ID were also on top of the dresser. Law enforcement seized the firearms. Meanwhile, the suspected controlled
substances from the controlled drug buy from Calhoun were sent to the
North Louisiana Crime Lab for assessment and evaluation, and they returned
positive for Schedule II (cocaine).
On April 21, 2023, Jeffery L. Calhoun was charged by bill of
information with committing the crimes of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, and two counts of distribution of a Schedule II CDS, less
than 28 grams.
On February 26, 2024, the day Calhoun’s trial was to commence,
Calhoun pled guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm and one
count of distribution of Schedule II CDS. There was no agreement as to
sentencing as a term of the guilty plea. Sentencing was left to the trial court
after completion of a presentence investigation (“PSI”) report. Calhoun had
previously been convicted of possession with intent to distribute Schedule I
CDS in DeSoto Parish within the last 10 years. The PSI report shows that
Calhoun’s several previous convictions included simple burglary, multiple
convictions for possession of Schedule II CDS, and possession with intent to
distribute Schedule I CDS.
On July 8, 2024, the trial court, with the benefit of the PSI and
Calhoun’s prior guilty plea, sentenced Calhoun to 10 years at hard labor on
each charge, to run consecutively to each another, for a total imprisonment
of 20 years. Calhoun now appeals his consecutive sentences, arguing in his
sole assignment of error that the consecutive ten-year sentences are
constitutionally excessive.
2 DISCUSSION
Assignment of Error: While Calhoun had seven prior felonies, he has no convictions for crimes of violence. Further, he has an almost 20-year history of drug addiction that likely fueled his criminal conduct. While Calhoun certainly merits punishment, as a 54-year-old with no convictions for crimes of violence, he does not merit consecutive 10-year sentences. Accordingly, the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences, 10 years of imprisonment of each charge, which constitutes an unconstitutionally harsh and excessive sentence.
Calhoun argues that his consecutive sentences are excessive.
Calhoun, who was 54 years old when sentenced, notes that he will be
incarcerated for 20 years for a nonviolent crime, driven by his drug
addiction. Calhoun acknowledges his seven prior felony convictions but
asserts that he has no convictions for crimes of violence. As such, the
consecutive nature of his sentences –10 years on each of his convictions – is
excessive.
Calhoun argues that his convictions stem from a single narcotics
investigation and asserts that although the distribution and possession of the
firearm occurred over several days, the underlying events were part of the
same course of conduct. Calhoun argues that the consecutive sentence
violates his constitutional rights because it serves no purpose and is merely
punitive. Calhoun also argues that he presented evidence at his sentencing
hearing that the firearms belonged to his girlfriend, not him. Calhoun argues
that given his age and lack of violent criminal history, there is little reason to
believe that he will be a threat to society when he is released from prison.
Therefore, he asserts, his consecutive sentences should be vacated, and this
Court should order Calhoun’s sentences to be served concurrently.
Under La. C. Cr. P. art. 556.1, a valid guilty plea must be a voluntary
choice by the defendant and not the result of force or threats. La. C. Cr. P.
3 art. 556.1 also provides that prior to accepting a guilty plea, the court must
personally inform the defendant of the nature of the charge to which the plea
is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, and the maximum possible
penalty. When the record establishes that an accused was informed of and
waived his right to a trial by jury, to confront his accusers, and against self-
incrimination, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that despite the
record, his guilty plea was involuntary. State v. Branch, 54,591 (La. App. 2
Cir. 4/5/23), 361 So. 3d 80). An express and knowing waiver of an
accused’s rights must appear on the record, and an unequivocal showing of a
free and voluntary waiver cannot be presumed. Boykin v. Alabama, 395
U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969); State v. Cheveallier,
56,068 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/26/25); State v. Branch, supra.
At Calhoun’s sentencing hearing, the trial judge specifically noted his
extensive criminal history, which was detailed in the PSI. Calhoun’s instant
conviction marked his eighth felony conviction spanning 36 years of
criminal activity. The State correctly notes that Calhoun was not successful
in completing probation in the past, which we acknowledge can be an
important consideration when fashioning a sentence which could include
supervised release.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered July 16, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 56,307-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
JEFFERY L. CALHOUN Appellant
Appealed from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana Trial Court No. 23CR33480
Honorable Nicholas E. Gasper, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Douglas Lee Harville
CHARLES B. ADAMS Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
EDWIN L. BLEWER, III RHYS E. BURGESS NANCY F. BERGER-SCHNEIDER ETHAN ARBUCKLE Assistant District Attorneys
Before STONE, THOMPSON, and ROBINSON, JJ. THOMPSON, J.
A seasoned and prolific criminal defendant pled guilty to one count of
distribution of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance and one count
of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The defendant was made
aware there was no agreement with the State as to his sentencing, and that
his sentence would be determined by the trial court. After a review of the
defendant’s criminal history and consideration of the facts in present matter,
the trial court sentenced him to ten years on each count, to run consecutively
with each another, for a total of 20 years’ imprisonment. The defendant now
appeals his consecutive sentences as being excessive, arguing that his crimes
arose out of one course of conduct, and consecutive sentences were therefore
not appropriate. We disagree, and affirm the defendant’s guilty plea, amend
his sentence in part to order it served without benefit of probation, parole, or
suspension of sentence, vacate the $1,000 fine and $50 fee imposed pending
a hearing, and hereby remand for that limited purpose.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 25, 2023, a confidential informant working with a local
drug task force in DeSoto Parish purchased crack cocaine from Jeffery L.
Calhoun, a known felon and previously convicted drug dealer. The money
for the purchase was provided by the local drug task force. The amount of
suspected crack cocaine in the transaction was an amount less than 28
grams.
A few days later, on February 28, 2023, based upon probable cause
established by the controlled drug buy, a search warrant was executed at
Calhoun’s home. Two firearms were found in a dresser drawer next to
Calhoun’s bed; his wallet and ID were also on top of the dresser. Law enforcement seized the firearms. Meanwhile, the suspected controlled
substances from the controlled drug buy from Calhoun were sent to the
North Louisiana Crime Lab for assessment and evaluation, and they returned
positive for Schedule II (cocaine).
On April 21, 2023, Jeffery L. Calhoun was charged by bill of
information with committing the crimes of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, and two counts of distribution of a Schedule II CDS, less
than 28 grams.
On February 26, 2024, the day Calhoun’s trial was to commence,
Calhoun pled guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm and one
count of distribution of Schedule II CDS. There was no agreement as to
sentencing as a term of the guilty plea. Sentencing was left to the trial court
after completion of a presentence investigation (“PSI”) report. Calhoun had
previously been convicted of possession with intent to distribute Schedule I
CDS in DeSoto Parish within the last 10 years. The PSI report shows that
Calhoun’s several previous convictions included simple burglary, multiple
convictions for possession of Schedule II CDS, and possession with intent to
distribute Schedule I CDS.
On July 8, 2024, the trial court, with the benefit of the PSI and
Calhoun’s prior guilty plea, sentenced Calhoun to 10 years at hard labor on
each charge, to run consecutively to each another, for a total imprisonment
of 20 years. Calhoun now appeals his consecutive sentences, arguing in his
sole assignment of error that the consecutive ten-year sentences are
constitutionally excessive.
2 DISCUSSION
Assignment of Error: While Calhoun had seven prior felonies, he has no convictions for crimes of violence. Further, he has an almost 20-year history of drug addiction that likely fueled his criminal conduct. While Calhoun certainly merits punishment, as a 54-year-old with no convictions for crimes of violence, he does not merit consecutive 10-year sentences. Accordingly, the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences, 10 years of imprisonment of each charge, which constitutes an unconstitutionally harsh and excessive sentence.
Calhoun argues that his consecutive sentences are excessive.
Calhoun, who was 54 years old when sentenced, notes that he will be
incarcerated for 20 years for a nonviolent crime, driven by his drug
addiction. Calhoun acknowledges his seven prior felony convictions but
asserts that he has no convictions for crimes of violence. As such, the
consecutive nature of his sentences –10 years on each of his convictions – is
excessive.
Calhoun argues that his convictions stem from a single narcotics
investigation and asserts that although the distribution and possession of the
firearm occurred over several days, the underlying events were part of the
same course of conduct. Calhoun argues that the consecutive sentence
violates his constitutional rights because it serves no purpose and is merely
punitive. Calhoun also argues that he presented evidence at his sentencing
hearing that the firearms belonged to his girlfriend, not him. Calhoun argues
that given his age and lack of violent criminal history, there is little reason to
believe that he will be a threat to society when he is released from prison.
Therefore, he asserts, his consecutive sentences should be vacated, and this
Court should order Calhoun’s sentences to be served concurrently.
Under La. C. Cr. P. art. 556.1, a valid guilty plea must be a voluntary
choice by the defendant and not the result of force or threats. La. C. Cr. P.
3 art. 556.1 also provides that prior to accepting a guilty plea, the court must
personally inform the defendant of the nature of the charge to which the plea
is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, and the maximum possible
penalty. When the record establishes that an accused was informed of and
waived his right to a trial by jury, to confront his accusers, and against self-
incrimination, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that despite the
record, his guilty plea was involuntary. State v. Branch, 54,591 (La. App. 2
Cir. 4/5/23), 361 So. 3d 80). An express and knowing waiver of an
accused’s rights must appear on the record, and an unequivocal showing of a
free and voluntary waiver cannot be presumed. Boykin v. Alabama, 395
U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969); State v. Cheveallier,
56,068 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/26/25); State v. Branch, supra.
At Calhoun’s sentencing hearing, the trial judge specifically noted his
extensive criminal history, which was detailed in the PSI. Calhoun’s instant
conviction marked his eighth felony conviction spanning 36 years of
criminal activity. The State correctly notes that Calhoun was not successful
in completing probation in the past, which we acknowledge can be an
important consideration when fashioning a sentence which could include
supervised release. We find that the trial court articulated a thorough factual
basis supporting his sentence, in accordance with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1.
Calhoun benefited from the dismissal of one of the distribution
charges and by the agreement with the State to forgo use of the Habitual
Offender Law, which would have significantly increased the length of
Calhoun’s incarceration. Louisiana’s Habitual Offender Law provides that
upon conviction of a fourth or subsequent felony, an offender would be
sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 20 years and not more than his 4 natural life. Considering the potential imprisonment Calhoun faced as a
habitual offender, he was fortunate to have been sentenced to only 20 years
of imprisonment. We conclude that Calhoun’s sentence does not shock the
sense of justice and was not an abuse of the trial court’s broad discretion.
The record shows that Calhoun is not simply a long-time drug user, he is a
long-time felon and drug dealer who carries and uses guns to further his drug
enterprise.
We acknowledge that concurrent sentences are favored when the
crimes arise out of one course of conduct. However, the crimes in this case
are not part of a single course of conduct. These crimes are distinct in time
and place. Calhoun sold crack cocaine on February 25, 2023, and three days
later, he was found to be in possession of a firearm in a different location.
These are separate crimes committed on separate days, and consecutive
sentences for each was an appropriate sentence. Accordingly, we find
Calhoun’s assignment of error lacks merit.
ERRORS PATENT
A review of the record indicates that the trial court failed to impose
the sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon without
benefits of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence as required by La.
R.S. 14:95.1. 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.
Further, a review of the record indicates that there is an error patent
regarding the trial court’s imposition of the $1,000 fine and the $50
reimbursement fee for costs of the PSI. As noted above, La. R.S. 14:95.1(B)
authorizes the imposition of a fine of not less than $500 nor more than 5 $2,500 upon conviction of the crime of attempted possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon. The trial court imposed a $1,000 fine and ordered
Calhoun to pay a reimbursement fee of $50 for PSI costs. While the
imposition of such a fine and cost appears reasonable, it can only be
imposed after a hearing on Calhoun’s financial ability to pay such a fine.
We find that Calhoun was entitled to a hearing pursuant to La. C. Cr.
P. art. 875.1, regarding a determination of substantial financial hardship to a
defendant, prior to the imposition of the $1,000 fine and $50 PSI
reimbursement cost. There is no evidence in the record that Calhoun or the
trial court waived the determination of financial hardship. Because a
hearing was not held, we are compelled to vacate the $1,000 fine and $50
PSI reimbursement cost and remand the matter to the trial court for the
required hearing. In all other respects, Calhoun’s conviction and
consecutive sentences are affirmed.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the guilty plea of Calhoun and
affirm, in part, his sentences of ten years at hard labor without benefit of
parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on his possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, and ten years at hard labor for distribution of Schedule
II CDS, to run consecutive with one another; vacate, in part, the imposition
of a $1,000 fine and $50 reimbursement fee imposed without a hearing; and
remand solely for a hearing pursuant to La. C. Cr. P. art. 875.1, to determine
Calhoun’s ability to pay any assessed fine.
SENTENCE AFFIRMED, IN PART, AND VACATED, IN PART. CASE REMANDED, WITH INSTRUCTIONS.