State of Louisiana v. Jimmy Wayne Newton, Jr.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: April 22, 2026
• Docket: 56,799-KA
• Status: Published
• Author: Hunter

Opinion

Judgment rendered April 22, 2026. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,799-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

JIMMY WAYNE NEWTON, JR. Appellant

Appealed from the Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of West Carroll, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2023-F019

Honorable John Clay Hamilton, Judge

LOUISIANA APPEALS Counsel for Appellant & WRIT SERVICE By: Desiree Marie Valenti

PENNY WISE DOUCIERE Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

MOLLY M. CLEMENT AMANDA MICHELE WILKINS Assistant District Attorneys

Before STONE, THOMPSON, and HUNTER, JJ. HUNTER, J.

Defendant, Jimmy Wayne Newton Jr., pleaded guilty to two counts of

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1, and

two counts of distributing methamphetamine under 28 grams, in violation of La.

R.S. 40:967(B)(1)(a). He was sentenced to serve consecutive sentences of 10 years

and 15 years at hard labor, without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension

of sentence for the firearm offenses. Defendant was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine

for each conviction. Defendant was also sentenced to serve 10 years at hard labor

for each drug distribution count, which were ordered to run consecutively to each

other but concurrently with the firearm sentences. For the following reasons, we

affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS

West Carroll Parish Sheriff’s Office received information that defendant,

Jimmy Wayne Newton, was illegally selling narcotics out of his residence in

Kilbourne, Louisiana. Between the dates of August 1 and September 31, 2022, the

Sheriff’s office initiated an investigation where undercover narcotics agents

purchased undisclosed amounts of methamphetamine.

On December 17, 2022, law enforcement executed a narcotics and search

warrant on defendant’s residence and uncovered methamphetamine, a .22 caliber

rifle, a .38 caliber handgun, a stolen motorcycle, and various pieces of drug

paraphernalia. At the time of the arrest, defendant was a convicted felon and

prohibited from possessing any firearms.

On February 22, 2023, defendant was charged by a bill of information with

two counts of possession of a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon by a person

convicted of certain felonies, in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1, two counts of illegal

carrying of a weapon during the use/possession/control of a controlled dangerous

substance (“CDS”), in violation of La. R.S. 14:95(E), and one count of possession of a Schedule II CDS, more than two grams but less than 28 grams

(methamphetamine), in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C)(2). On April 25, 2023, the

State filed a motion to amend the bill of information to include two counts of

distribution of a Schedule II CDS, less than 28 grams, (methamphetamine), in

violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A)(1) and La. R.S. 40:967(B)(1).

On December 4, 2024, defendant executed a written plea agreement, in

which he pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm or carrying a

concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies and two counts of

distribution of a Schedule II CDS, more than two grams but less than 28 grams. In

exchange, the state dismissed the remaining charges, and the court accepted the

defendant’s guilty plea. Defendant was advised of the statutory sentencing range

and that sentencing was to be left to the court’s discretion, subject to the

completion of a presentence investigation report. A sentencing hearing was

scheduled for February 11, 2025. Defendant failed to appear for sentencing and

was found weeks later injured in Oklahoma; he was subsequently arrested for his

outstanding warrant in Louisiana.

On May 7, 2025, defendant was sentenced as follows: Count One - 10 years

for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; Count Two - 15 years

for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; Counts Six and Seven -

10 years for unlawful distribution of less than 28 grams of methamphetamine.

Counts One and Two were ordered to run consecutively, and the sentences for

counts Six and Seven were ordered to run consecutively to each other, but

concurrently with the sentences for counts One and Two. On June 6, 2025, the

trial court denied the defendant’s “motion for reconsideration of sentence” and

“motion to withdraw plea” without a hearing.

Defendant appeals.

2 DISCUSSION

Maximum and Consecutive Sentences

Defendant contends the sentences imposed were constitutional excessive. He

argues that the court improperly imposed maximum consecutive sentences because

at the time of his guilty plea, he was not advised that consecutive sentencing was a

possibility. The defendant also asserts that the imposition of maximum and

consecutive sentences under these circumstances is excessive and constitutes cruel

and unusual punishment.

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. Davis, 56,118 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/26/25), 408 So. 3d 1092, writ

denied, 25-00332 (La. 4/29/25), 407 So. 3d 624; State v. Sanders, 54,261 (La. App.

2 Cir. 3/9/22), 335 So. 3d 530; State v. Cooksey, 53,660 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/26/21),

316 So. 3d 1287, writ denied, 21-00901 (La. 10/12/21), 325 So. 3d 1074; State v.

Gardner, 46,688 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/2/11), 77 So. 3d 1052. State v. Burns, 56,456

(La. App. 2 Cir. 10/22/25), 422 So. 3d 893.

The trial judge is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating

circumstance so long as the record reflects that he adequately considered the

guidelines of the article. State v. Shipp, 30,562 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/8/98), 712 So. 2d

237. The trial court should consider the defendant’s personal history and prior

criminal record, the seriousness of the offense, the likelihood that the defendant

will commit another crime, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. State v.

Jones, 398 So. 2d 1051 (La. 1981). State v. Thomas, 51,364 (La. App. 2 Cir.

5/17/17), 223 So. 3d 131, writ denied, 17-1049 (La. 3/9/18), 238 So. 3d 450. The

trial court is not required to assign any particular weight to any specific matters

3 at sentencing. State v. Quiambao, 36,587 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/11/02), 833 So. 2d

1110, writ denied, 03-0477 (La. 5/16/03), 843 So. 2d 1130.

The Eighth Amendment of 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. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So. 2d 762 (La. 1979). 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 purposeless and needless infliction of pain and

suffering. State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So. 2d 4; State v. Dorthey,

623 So. 2d 1281 (La. 1993); State v. Bonanno, 384 So. 2d 357 (La. 1980). 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. The relevant question is

whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another

sentence might have been more appropriate. State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La. 5/31/96),

674 So. 2d 959, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043, 117 S. Ct. 615, 136 L. Ed. 2d 539

(1996). State v. Joyce, 56,451 (La. App. 2 Cir. 10/1/25), 420 So. 3d 880.

For possession of a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon by a person

convicted of certain felonies, the sentencing range is not less than five nor more

than 20 years at hard labor, without benefits. La. R.S. 14:95.1 (B)(1).

For distribution of a Schedule II CDS with an aggregate weight of less than

28 grams, a person shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not less

than one year nor more than ten years and may, in addition, be fined not more than

$50,000. La. R.S. 40:967(B)(1)(a).

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s sentencing. The sentence

followed the guidelines of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894 and was based on the

defendant’s extensive criminal history, repeated failure to complete probation or

4 parole, and the risk of committing additional crimes if given a suspended sentence

or probation. Although the defendant’s medical history was briefly mentioned, the

trial judge was unable to consider defendant’s personal background because

defendant refused to cooperate with the presentence investigation. The lower court

also noted defendant received a significant benefit from the plea agreement.

Without the plea, he could have faced up to 40 years in prison for two counts

related to operating a clandestine laboratory, along with additional charges and

potential decades of additional prison time for weapons violations and possession

of controlled substances under La R.S. 14:95 and La. R.S. 40:967.

After reviewing the sentencing factors under La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, we find

that the trial judge appropriately tailored the sentence to this defendant. The record

shows the sentences were not excessive, and we find no error in the trial court’s

application of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1.

Further, it is within a trial court’s discretion to order sentences to run

consecutively rather than concurrently. State v. Wing, 51,857 (La. App. 2 Cir.

2/28/18), 246 So. 3d 716. When consecutive sentences are imposed, the court shall

state the factors considered and its reasons for the consecutive terms. Id. When two

or more convictions arise from the same act or transaction, or constitute parts of a

common scheme or plan, the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently

unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively. La.

C.Cr.P. art. 883. The failure to articulate specific reasons for consecutive sentences

does not require remand if the record provides an adequate factual basis to support

consecutive sentences. See State v. Harris, 42,376 (La.App. 2d Cir.9/26/07), 966

So.2d 782, writ denied, 2007–2109 (La.3/28/08), 978 So.2d 304.

The court found that the trial judge properly justified the sentences under La.

C. Cr. Pr. art. 883. The two convictions for distribution of a Schedule II CDS

occurred on different dates, so they were not part of the same act or a common

5 scheme. Although the defendant also had two convictions for possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon involving two separate firearms, the trial

court ordered those sentences to run concurrently as an act of leniency, even

though they could have been consecutive. Because the trial judge gave specific

justification based on the record, consistent with State v. Gant, 54, 837 (La. App. 2

Cir. 1/11/23), 354 So. 3d 824, we find no merit in the defendant’s claim of error.

Mitigating Factors

In a separate assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred

in failing to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, specifically his stage four

renal cancer diagnosis and his age (55) at the time of sentencing.

As stated above, 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 the article. State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983); State v.

Croskey, 53,505 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/20), 296 So. 3d 1151. The important

elements which should be considered are the defendant’s personal history (age,

family ties, marital status, health, and employment record), prior criminal record,

seriousness of offense, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So.

2d 1052 (La. 1981). State v. Holmes, 56,398 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/27/25), 419 So. 3d

426.

The argument is without merit because the trial court properly considered

the aggravating and mitigating factors under La. C.C. art. 894.1. The court

emphasized the defendant’s extensive criminal history as an eight-time felon and

determined that his repeated drug trafficking posed a threat to the community’s

health and safety. It also noted his inability to complete probation or parole

successfully. Additionally, the defendant failed to provide medical documentation,

meaningful information about his social history, or any mitigating circumstances

before sentencing.

6 Guilty Plea

The defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying his “open-ended”

plea agreement, as, based on fundamental fairness, the court should have granted

his motion to withdraw the guilty plea.

Upon motion of the defendant and after a contradictory hearing, which may

be waived by the state in writing, the court may permit a plea of guilty to be

withdrawn at any time before sentence. La. C. Cr. P. art. 559. The discretion to

allow the withdrawal of a guilty plea under La. C. Cr. P. Art. 559 lies with the trial

court, and such discretion cannot be disturbed absent an abuse or arbitrary exercise

of that discretion. State v. Cooper, 52,408 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/8/18), 261 So. 3d

975.

Generally, the denial of withdrawal of a guilty plea will not be reversed on

appeal when the record shows the defendant was informed of his rights and the

consequences of the plea and that the plea was entered voluntarily. State v. Harris,

43,069 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/19/08), 980 So. 2d 178. Under La. Cr. P. art. 556.1, a

valid plea must be a voluntary choice by the defendant and not the result of force

or threats. La. C. Cr. P. 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. Cheveallier, 56,068 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/26/25), 408 So. 3d

325.

We find defendant’s argument lacks merit. The record establishes that

defendant was competent and confirms that he understood the charges against him.

The trial court explained the definitions of the offenses, possession of a firearm by

7 a convicted felon and distribution of a Schedule II CDS, and informed defendant of

the minimum and maximum possible sentences. The trial court also confirmed that

defendant understood he was waiving his rights and that he entered the plea freely

and voluntarily. Therefore, this assignment of error has no merit as the defendant

failed to show the trial court abused its discretion, as the plea was properly

informed, knowing, and voluntarily entered.

Error Patent Review

Pursuant to La. C. Cr. P. art. 920(2), in conducting a patent error review, this

court shall consider “[a]n error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the

pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence.” State v.

Anthony, 23-0117 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/3/23), 378 So. 3d 775, writ denied, 2024-

00027 (La. 5/21/24), 385 So. 3d 242.

Defendant received a fine of $1,000 for each conviction of possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon. La. C. Cr. P. art. 875.1(C)(1) requires the trial court

to conduct a hearing to determine whether payment of the aggregate amount of all

the financial obligations to be imposed would cause substantial financial hardship

to the defendant or his dependents. State v. Shepherd, 56,075 (La. App. 2 Cir.

2/26/25), 408 So. 3d 375, reh'g denied (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/2/25). As the record does

not indicate the required financial hardship hearing was conducted or show

defendant waived the hearing as provided for in La. C. Cr. P. art. 875.1(C)(2), we

set aside the imposition of the fine and remand this matter for the trial court to

comply with La. C. Cr. P. art. 875.1(C).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, defendant’s convictions and sentences are

hereby affirmed. The imposition of the $1,000 fines is vacated, and we remand this

case for a hearing pursuant to La. C. Cr. P. art. 875.1 to determine the defendant’s

ability to pay any assessed fine.

8 CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART; CASE REMANDED.