Judgment rendered December 17, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 56,691-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
JERRON BAILEY, SR. Appellant
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 392,336
Honorable Ramona L. Emanuel, Judge
LOUISIANA APPEALS & WRIT SERVICE Counsel for Appellant By: Remy V. Starns Michael A. Mitchell Desiree M. Valenti
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
FERNANDO B. GRIDER, JR. ERIC M. WHITEHEAD Assistant District Attorneys
Before COX, STEPHENS, and MARCOTTE, JJ.
STEPHENS, J., dissenting in part. COX, J.
This criminal appeal arises out of the First Judicial District Court,
Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Jerron Bailey, Sr. was convicted of aggravated
flight from an officer and sentenced to four years of imprisonment at hard
labor. Bailey appeals his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS
Bailey was charged with aggravated flight from an officer and
aggravated assault upon a peace officer. A jury trial was held on May 21-
22, 2024, where the following testimonies were presented:
Shreveport Police Officer Nathaniel Davis testified that he was
working patrol on November 13, 2022, when he initiated a traffic stop of
Bailey for going 92 mph in a 60 mph zone. He stated it was going to be a
traffic citation, but Bailey refused to stop. He stated that they played a game
of “cat and mouse” with Bailey, as he would inch forward when they
attempted to approach his vehicle; then, Bailey drove off. Ofc. Davis
testified that Bailey remained at a low speed through residential areas, but he
sped on the major roads, ran red lights and stop signs, and crossed over the
yellow center line. Ofc. Davis’s dash cam video was played for the jury. He
stated that the pursuit of Bailey lasted about 13 minutes, and Bailey was
ultimately arrested.
On cross-examination, Ofc. Davis stated that they followed Bailey
home, where he was arrested. He testified that during the chase, Bailey
could be heard saying he was a scared citizen or sovereign citizen, he was
scared for his life, and he wanted officers to follow him home. Ofc. Davis
testified that when Bailey was arrested, he asked officers not to kill him and
stated he was a man of God. Shreveport Police Officer Andre Wilson testified that he assisted in
the pursuit of Bailey. He stated that he paralleled the pursuit to try to cut off
Bailey. Ofc. Wilson’s dash cam video was played for the jury. He testified
that he parked his vehicle in an intersection to get Bailey to stop but moved
his vehicle when he felt that Bailey would hit it. On cross-examination, Ofc.
Wilson stated that Bailey was moving slowly as he approached his vehicle
and sped up as he moved his vehicle out of the way.
Shreveport Police Officer Christopher Davidson testified that he
assisted in the traffic stop and pursuit of Bailey. He stated that he provided
backup behind Ofc. Davis’s vehicle and corroborated Ofc. Davis’s
testimony.
Bailey elected not to testify. The jury unanimously found Bailey
guilty as charged of aggravated flight from an officer and not guilty of
aggravated assault upon a peace officer. Bailey filed a motion for new trial
and a motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal, arguing that there was
no evidence that the officer(s) had reasonable grounds to believe that he had
committed an offense. Both of his motions were denied by the trial court.
Bailey filed a sentencing memorandum, requesting a sentence of two years
at hard labor. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated:
This matter comes before this Court for sentencing. This Court has read defense’s sentencing memorandum filed previously, and has given an opportunity for the defense and the state to make any additional statements they may wish to make of record at this time. Mr. Bailey has been convicted by a jury of the felony charge of aggravated flight from an officer. Mr. Bailey, this court so sentences you to serve four years at hard labor, credit for time served. Further, the Court recommends you to and for any and all special programs and/or life skill programs to which you may be eligible during your period of incarceration and thereafter to include reentry and any other special programs provided that you are eligible for same. You are given credit for time served. 2 Bailey filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied in
open court. Bailey now appeals.
DISCUSSION
Bailey argues that the trial court failed to provide a factual basis for
the sentence or show that it tailored its sentence to him. He states that the
transcript and sentencing memorandum reflect the existence of the following
mitigating factors which the trial court either ignored or failed to articulate
its consideration: 1) serious harm was not caused or threatened in the
commission of the offense (defendant was found not guilty of aggravated
assault on a police officer); 2) he did not contemplate that his criminal
conduct would cause or threaten serious harm; 3) he repeatedly asserted
throughout the incident that he was afraid, asking the officers not to kill him
and to follow him home; 4) he had no prior violent criminal history; 5) his
criminal conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur; and 6)
the sentence will undoubtedly cause hardship to his nine-year-old son.
Bailey argues that his near-maximum sentence is excessive. He
points out that his offense did not occur during the commission of a violent
offense, and he was unarmed. He states that he is not the worst of the worst,
and his sentence is cruel and unusual, grossly disproportionate, and shocks
the sense of justice when viewed in light of the harm done to society. He
requests this Court vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.
In reviewing a sentence for excessiveness, an appellate court uses a
two-step process. First, the record must show that the trial court took
cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The
articulation of a factual basis for a sentence is the goal of article 894.1, not
rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions. State v. Bell, 53,712 3 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/13/21), 310 So. 3d 307; State v. Kelly, 52,731 (La. App. 2
Cir. 6/26/19), 277 So. 3d 855, writ denied, 19-01845 (La. 6/3/20), 296 So.
3d 1071.
The trial court is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating
circumstance so long as the record reflects that it adequately considered the
guidelines of La. C.C. art. 894.1. State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983);
State v. Bell, supra. The important elements which should be considered are
the defendant’s personal history (age, family ties, marital status, health,
employment record), prior criminal record, seriousness of the offense, and
the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049 (La. 1981);
State v. Bell, supra; State v. Thompson, 50,392 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/24/16),
189 So. 3d 1139, writ denied, 16-0535 (La. 3/31/17), 217 So. 3d 358. There
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered December 17, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 56,691-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
JERRON BAILEY, SR. Appellant
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 392,336
Honorable Ramona L. Emanuel, Judge
LOUISIANA APPEALS & WRIT SERVICE Counsel for Appellant By: Remy V. Starns Michael A. Mitchell Desiree M. Valenti
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
FERNANDO B. GRIDER, JR. ERIC M. WHITEHEAD Assistant District Attorneys
Before COX, STEPHENS, and MARCOTTE, JJ.
STEPHENS, J., dissenting in part. COX, J.
This criminal appeal arises out of the First Judicial District Court,
Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Jerron Bailey, Sr. was convicted of aggravated
flight from an officer and sentenced to four years of imprisonment at hard
labor. Bailey appeals his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS
Bailey was charged with aggravated flight from an officer and
aggravated assault upon a peace officer. A jury trial was held on May 21-
22, 2024, where the following testimonies were presented:
Shreveport Police Officer Nathaniel Davis testified that he was
working patrol on November 13, 2022, when he initiated a traffic stop of
Bailey for going 92 mph in a 60 mph zone. He stated it was going to be a
traffic citation, but Bailey refused to stop. He stated that they played a game
of “cat and mouse” with Bailey, as he would inch forward when they
attempted to approach his vehicle; then, Bailey drove off. Ofc. Davis
testified that Bailey remained at a low speed through residential areas, but he
sped on the major roads, ran red lights and stop signs, and crossed over the
yellow center line. Ofc. Davis’s dash cam video was played for the jury. He
stated that the pursuit of Bailey lasted about 13 minutes, and Bailey was
ultimately arrested.
On cross-examination, Ofc. Davis stated that they followed Bailey
home, where he was arrested. He testified that during the chase, Bailey
could be heard saying he was a scared citizen or sovereign citizen, he was
scared for his life, and he wanted officers to follow him home. Ofc. Davis
testified that when Bailey was arrested, he asked officers not to kill him and
stated he was a man of God. Shreveport Police Officer Andre Wilson testified that he assisted in
the pursuit of Bailey. He stated that he paralleled the pursuit to try to cut off
Bailey. Ofc. Wilson’s dash cam video was played for the jury. He testified
that he parked his vehicle in an intersection to get Bailey to stop but moved
his vehicle when he felt that Bailey would hit it. On cross-examination, Ofc.
Wilson stated that Bailey was moving slowly as he approached his vehicle
and sped up as he moved his vehicle out of the way.
Shreveport Police Officer Christopher Davidson testified that he
assisted in the traffic stop and pursuit of Bailey. He stated that he provided
backup behind Ofc. Davis’s vehicle and corroborated Ofc. Davis’s
testimony.
Bailey elected not to testify. The jury unanimously found Bailey
guilty as charged of aggravated flight from an officer and not guilty of
aggravated assault upon a peace officer. Bailey filed a motion for new trial
and a motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal, arguing that there was
no evidence that the officer(s) had reasonable grounds to believe that he had
committed an offense. Both of his motions were denied by the trial court.
Bailey filed a sentencing memorandum, requesting a sentence of two years
at hard labor. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated:
This matter comes before this Court for sentencing. This Court has read defense’s sentencing memorandum filed previously, and has given an opportunity for the defense and the state to make any additional statements they may wish to make of record at this time. Mr. Bailey has been convicted by a jury of the felony charge of aggravated flight from an officer. Mr. Bailey, this court so sentences you to serve four years at hard labor, credit for time served. Further, the Court recommends you to and for any and all special programs and/or life skill programs to which you may be eligible during your period of incarceration and thereafter to include reentry and any other special programs provided that you are eligible for same. You are given credit for time served. 2 Bailey filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied in
open court. Bailey now appeals.
DISCUSSION
Bailey argues that the trial court failed to provide a factual basis for
the sentence or show that it tailored its sentence to him. He states that the
transcript and sentencing memorandum reflect the existence of the following
mitigating factors which the trial court either ignored or failed to articulate
its consideration: 1) serious harm was not caused or threatened in the
commission of the offense (defendant was found not guilty of aggravated
assault on a police officer); 2) he did not contemplate that his criminal
conduct would cause or threaten serious harm; 3) he repeatedly asserted
throughout the incident that he was afraid, asking the officers not to kill him
and to follow him home; 4) he had no prior violent criminal history; 5) his
criminal conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur; and 6)
the sentence will undoubtedly cause hardship to his nine-year-old son.
Bailey argues that his near-maximum sentence is excessive. He
points out that his offense did not occur during the commission of a violent
offense, and he was unarmed. He states that he is not the worst of the worst,
and his sentence is cruel and unusual, grossly disproportionate, and shocks
the sense of justice when viewed in light of the harm done to society. He
requests this Court vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.
In reviewing a sentence for excessiveness, an appellate court uses a
two-step process. First, the record must show that the trial court took
cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The
articulation of a factual basis for a sentence is the goal of article 894.1, not
rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions. State v. Bell, 53,712 3 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/13/21), 310 So. 3d 307; State v. Kelly, 52,731 (La. App. 2
Cir. 6/26/19), 277 So. 3d 855, writ denied, 19-01845 (La. 6/3/20), 296 So.
3d 1071.
The trial court is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating
circumstance so long as the record reflects that it adequately considered the
guidelines of La. C.C. art. 894.1. State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983);
State v. Bell, supra. The important elements which should be considered are
the defendant’s personal history (age, family ties, marital status, health,
employment record), prior criminal record, seriousness of the offense, and
the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049 (La. 1981);
State v. Bell, supra; State v. Thompson, 50,392 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/24/16),
189 So. 3d 1139, writ denied, 16-0535 (La. 3/31/17), 217 So. 3d 358. There
is no requirement that specific matters be given any particular weight at
sentencing. State v. Bell, supra; State v. Brown, 51,352 (La. App. 2 Cir.
5/2/17), 223 So. 3d 88, writ denied, 17-1154 (La. 5/11/18), 241 So. 3d 1013.
Second, the court must determine whether the sentence is
constitutionally excessive. A sentence violates La. Const. art. I, § 20 if it is
grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime or nothing more than a
purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. Dorthey,
623 So. 2d 1276 (La. 1993); State v. Bell, supra. 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. Bell, supra. A
sentence may be excessive under La. Const. art. I, § 20 even if it falls within
the statutory range established by the Legislature. State v. Johnson, 97-1906
(La. 3/4/98), 709 So. 2d 672; State v. Sepulvado, 367 So. 2d 762 (La. 1979). 4 The trial court has 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.
Williams, 03-3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So. 2d 7; State v. Bell, supra. A trial
judge is in the best position to consider the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances of a particular case, and, therefore, is given broad discretion
in sentencing. State v. Bell, supra; State v. Allen, 49,642 (La. App. 2 Cir.
2/26/15), 162 So. 3d 519, writ denied, 15-0608 (La. 1/25/16), 184 So. 3d
1289. On review, the 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; State v. Kelly, supra.
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. Gant, 54,837 (La. App. 2 Cir.
1/11/23), 354 So. 3d 824; State v. Sims, 53,791 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/30/21),
322 So. 3d 902.
At the time of the offense, the sentence for aggravated flight from an
officer was up to five years at hard labor. La. R.S. 14:108.1(E)(1). Bailey
was sentenced to four years at hard labor.
Although the trial court did not list out the aggravating and mitigating
factors of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, it did reference Bailey’s sentencing
memorandum, which listed out the factors. Bailey listed out what he felt
were mitigating factors, as detailed above. The trial court is not required to
list every aggravating and mitigating factor. We find the trial court’s
reference to Bailey’s sentencing memorandum to be sufficient in
particularizing his sentence. 5 Bailey was sentenced to four years at hard labor. Although it is on the
upper end of the zero to five year sentencing range, it is not a maximum
sentence. While most of the chase was not at a high rate of speed, Bailey
continued to drive away from the police when told to stop. It was around 1
a.m. and the area was not crowded with traffic, but Bailey crossed over the
center yellow line multiple times and ran several red lights and stop signs.
This posed a danger to anyone on the streets at that time. As such, we do not
find the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Bailey. We affirm his
sentence.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, Jerron Bailey, Sr.’s sentence is
affirmed.
6 STEPHENS, J., dissenting in part.
Bailey is neither the worst of offenders nor is aggravated flight from
an officer the worst of offenses. The maximum sentence that should have
been imposed in this case is 18 months. The legislature, in its wisdom,
clearly considers maximum sentences to be the exception, not the rule. In a
civil law jurisdiction, judges must follow the law, not make it. I respectfully
dissent in part.