State of Louisiana v. Johnny Thompson, Jr.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: May 21, 2025
• Docket: 56,268-KA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered May 21, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,268-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

JOHNNY THOMPSON, JR. Appellant

Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 391,914

Honorable Michael A. Pitman, Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Douglas Lee Harville

JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

MARGARET E. RICHIE GASKINS VICTORIA T. WASHINGTON Assistant District Attorneys

Before THOMPSON, ROBINSON, and MARCOTTE, JJ. THOMPSON, J.

A dispute over a small unpaid debt erupted during a domino game and

the victim was beaten unconscious, robbed, and while unconscious relocated

over half a mile and left by the defendant. The victim never recovered from

his extensive injuries and was in a vegetative state until his death from sepsis

while still hospitalized. After being convicted by a unanimous jury of

second degree robbery, the defendant was ordered to serve the maximum 40-

year sentence, which the trial court indicated was appropriate due to the

brutal attack and cruel treatment of the victim. Considering the violent

nature of the attack and resulting injuries, and that the trial court

appropriately considered all mitigating and aggravating factors in fashioning

its sentence, as well as for the reasons more fully detailed below, we affirm

the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Johnny Thompson, Jr. (“Thompson”) was charged with one count of

second degree robbery, in violation of La. R.S. 14:64.4, by the Caddo Parish

District Attorney. The State alleged the events giving rise to the charges

occurred on or about April 3, 2022, when Thompson took money by force,

violence, and intimidation from, and intentionally inflicted serious bodily

injury to, Robert Wayne Williams.

Thompson’s jury trial was held on May 6 and 7, 2024. Testimony and

evidence introduced at trial established the facts of the incident, as follows.

On April 3, 2022, Rose Marie Edwards noticed a man lying face down in

front of a vacant house near her home on Kelsey Street in Shreveport,

Louisiana. The man told her he was all right; however, he was still lying

there when Edwards passed by the house again 30 minutes later. At that time, the man indicated he was unable to get up. Edwards went back inside

her home and called 911.

Shreveport Police Department (“SPD”) Corporal Michael Milczarski

testified that he responded to the 911 call at 11:58 AM. Upon arriving he

observed a black male lying on his back in front of the vacant house on

Kelsey Street. The man was wearing a black jacket, torn gray undershirt,

and camo pants down around his shins. Cpl. Milczarski described that the

man was mumbling, disoriented, and unable to clearly communicate his

name. The victim was ultimately identified as Robert Wayne Williams by

an EBT card found on his person. Cpl. Milczarski testified that Williams

had bruising to his torso and right arm, scrapes and bruising on his right

hand, a significant scrape on his knee, and his face was swollen around his

eyes. Cpl. Milczarski testified he asked Williams questions about what

happened; Williams incorrectly stated that he was in a park and had been

dropped off there. Williams was unable to walk, so EMS placed him on a

stretcher and transported him to the hospital for treatment.

SPD Detective Gilbert Monereau was assigned to investigate

Williams’ case. Det. Monereau interviewed Sarah Walker-Blocker, who

was a friend of both Williams and Thompson. She provided a statement to

police that Thompson injured Williams during an incident that took place in

the early morning hours of April 3, 2022, at 1350 Audrey Lane in

Shreveport, which is approximately 0.7 miles from the vacant house where

Williams was found.

Walker-Blocker also testified in person at trial. She testified that on

the night of the incident, after midnight but before sunrise, Williams was at

the Audrey Lane home in Shreveport drinking and playing dominoes with 2 her at the table. Williams removed $40 from his pocket and placed it on the

table. After a couple of hours, Thompson arrived at the house. Williams

had previously borrowed money from Thompson but had not paid the money

back. Thompson saw the money on the table, grabbed it, and asked

Williams about the rest of the money Williams owed him. When Williams

stood up and as he began to explain that he would come up with the rest of

the money, Thompson struck him in the face, knocking him to the floor.

Thompson then got on top of Williams and continued to hit him in the face

while he lay on the floor. Walker-Blocker asked Thompson to stop hitting

Williams, but he did not stop hitting him until Williams was unconscious.

Walker-Blocker testified that once Williams was unconscious,

Thompson searched his body and removed additional money from his front

pocket. While Williams was still unconscious, Thompson dragged his body

out of the door by pulling on one of his arms. Walker-Blocker stayed inside

the house, closed the door, and locked it. She did not know what the men

did or where they went afterwards. She did not call the police immediately

after the incident. Although Walker-Blocker did testify at trial, she stated

she was unhappy about having to testify and did not want to be involved in

the case because both men were her friends.

Williams’ brother, Mark Harris, testified that Williams remained in a

vegetative and unresponsive state from the time EMS transported him to the

hospital on April 3, 2023, until his death in June 2023. Harris testified that

Williams was transferred from the hospital to multiple rehabilitation

facilities in the weeks before his death. Harris visited his brother in the

rehabilitation centers and attempted to communicate with him, but Williams

was unable to respond or move his own body, was disfigured, lost a 3 significant amount of weight, and was extremely ill. Williams’ condition

never improved. Williams developed sepsis, which caused organ failure and

his eventual death weeks after his attack and hospitalization.

At the conclusion of the trial Thompson was found guilty as charged

by a unanimous jury. Thompson filed a timely motion for post-judgment

verdict of acquittal. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the

motion. During the sentencing hearing, the trial court methodically

considered each aggravating and mitigating circumstance provided in La. C.

Cr. P. art. 894.1 and sentenced Thompson to the maximum sentence of 40

years’ imprisonment at hard labor. Thompson filed a timely motion to

reconsider sentence which was denied without a hearing. This appeal,

asserting as excessive Thompson’s 40-year sentence, followed.

DISCUSSION

Assignment of Error: When justifying its maximum sentence for Thompson, the trial court concluded that he beat Mr. Williams so badly that Mr. Williams never recovered and eventually died because of the beating. However, the record on appeal fails to establish a causal relation between Thompson’s conduct and Mr. Williams’ medical condition and death. Therefore, the trial court’s sentence is unreasonably harsh, this Court should vacate Thompson’s sentence, and it should remand this matter for resentencing.

In his sole assignment of error, Thompson argues that his sentence of

40 years’ imprisonment at hard labor is excessive. At sentencing, the trial

court determined that Thompson severely beat Williams, and that he never

recovered from those injuries and subsequently passed away. Thompson

argues that conclusion about the cause of Williams’ death led the trial court

to impose the maximum sentence, but at trial that the State offered no

medical records to support the trial court’s conclusions regarding Williams’

death. Thompson asserts the State did not offer testimony from treating

4 physicians, caregivers, or experts to attempt to connect Thompson’s alleged

conduct to Williams’ medical problems, injuries, or death.

Thompson argues that Williams was able to communicate with first

responders upon their arrival at the scene and that Williams’ symptoms were

consistent with being inebriated or suffering a concussion. The first

responders noted Williams was the victim of an “assault,” but Williams did

not have any broken bones or head abnormalities. His chest, lung sounds,

pelvis, left arm, right arm, and right leg had no abnormalities. Williams had

a normal neurological baseline and was sitting during transportation by first

responders.

Thompson acknowledges that Williams’ family testified about his

declining health and ultimate death. However, he asserts the State failed to

offer medical evidence to establish a causal connection between Thompson’s

conduct and the testimony concerning Williams’ medical condition, decline,

and death. Thompson argues that the trial court’s sentence lacked a factual

basis in the record because it was based on a purported causal connection

between Thompson’s conduct and Williams’ medical condition and death.

Therefore, Thompson argues that his sentence is excessive, and it should be

vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing.

In response to Thompson’s assignment of error, the State argues that

Walker-Blocker’s statement to police as well as her testimony at trial

unequivocally established that Williams beat Thompson severely, striking

him until he lost consciousness, and took money out of Williams’ pocket.

Her testimony also established that prior to the incident, Williams was able

to stand, talk, and play dominoes. The testimony of Harris, Williams’

brother, established that after being hit on the head numerous times, 5 Williams was disfigured and unable to move or communicate on his own.

The jury accepted the lay testimony of Walker-Blocker, Harris, and Det.

Monereau and drew reasonable inferences based on that testimony. The

State argues that medical evidence is not required to establish a causal

connection between being beaten on the head and subsequently being unable

to independently move or communicate. We agree that the trial court’s

determination that the beating and robbery caused Williams’ condition was

reasonable. The considerations set forth in La. R.S. 14:64.4 focus on

Thompson’s intentionally inflicting serious bodily injury to Williams while

taking something of value from him. The extent of the beating – to the point

of unconsciousness – is the focus in reviewing Thompson’s sentence, not

Williams’ ultimate death. It is the facts leading up to and surrounding the

intensive beating administered by Thompson and the injuries received by

Williams that are the focus of our review.

La. R.S. 14:64.4 provides that second degree robbery is the taking of

anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is

in the immediate control of another when the offender intentionally inflicts

serious bodily injury. Whoever commits the crime of second degree robbery

shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than three years and for not

more than forty years.

An excessive sentence claim is reviewed by examining whether the

trial court adequately considered the guidelines established in La. C. Cr. P.

art. 894.1, and whether the sentence is constitutionally excessive. State v.

Dowles, 54,483 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/25/22), 339 So. 3d 749; State v. Vanhorn,

52,583 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/19), 268 So. 3d 357, writ denied, 19-00745 (La.

11/19/19), 282 So. 3d 1065. First, the record must show that the trial court 6 took cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The

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. 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 1049 (La. 1981); Dowles, supra. There is no requirement that

specific matters be given any particular weight at sentencing. Dowles,

supra.

Second, the court must determine whether the sentence is

constitutionally excessive. Dowles, supra. Constitutional review turns upon

whether the sentence is illegal, grossly disproportionate to the severity of the

offense, or shocking to the sense of justice. 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 the purposeless infliction of pain and suffering. A

sentence is grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are

viewed in light of the harm to society, it shocks the sense of justice. State v.

Baker, 51,933 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/11/18), 247 So. 3d 990, writ denied, 18-

0858 (La. 12/3/18), 257 So. 3d 195, and writ denied, 18-0833 (La. 12/3/18),

257 So. 3d 196.

The trial court has wide discretion in the imposition of sentences

within the statutory limits, and sentences should not be set aside as excessive 7 in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion. Dowles, 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. Id. Absent specific authority, it is not the role of an appellate

court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the

appropriateness of a particular sentence. Id. As a general rule, maximum

sentences are appropriate in cases involving the most serious violation of the

offense and the worst type of offender. State v. Taylor, 41,898 (La. App. 2

Cir. 4/4/07), 954 So. 2d 804.

We find the trial court adequately considered La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1

for sentencing. The trial court considered each factor provided in Article

894.1 on the record, and determined that several aggravating circumstances

existed, and no mitigating factors existed. Thompson’s severe battery of

Williams over a small amount of money manifested deliberate cruelty

toward the victim. Thompson beat Williams unconscious and then dragged

his limp body out of the house, relocating him over half a mile away,

causing more scrapes and injuries, until leaving Williams unconscious

before he was discovered hours later. Williams’ condition when he was

discovered, including scrapes to his hands and legs and his pants being down

around his shins, indicated he was dragged while unconscious for quite a

distance by Thompson. The vicious attack and brazen display of brutality by

dragging an unconscious victim is alarming and was appropriately

considered by the trial court. The trial court specifically noted that

Thompson relocated Williams’ severely injured body in an attempt to

conceal his crime. The trial court also noted that during jail calls, Thompson

instructed his sister to persuade witnesses to provide false information about 8 the incident in an attempt to influence the outcome of the criminal

proceedings.

In imposing the maximum sentence, the trial court considered

Thompson’s experience in the criminal justice system and his criminal

history, including prior convictions for possession with intent to distribute a

Schedule I controlled dangerous substance, possession of marijuana second

offense, driving while intoxicated first offense, and second degree battery.

Thompson’s current offense of second degree robbery presents an escalation

in both seriousness and violence of his well-documented criminal behavior.

The trial court specifically noted Thompson’s callous indifference to the

older and defenseless victim, which the trial court concluded indicates

Thompson is likely to re-offend.

The factor the trial court granted great weight at sentencing was the

seriousness of the offense. The trial court noted there was no strong

provocation for Thompson’s actions, and he severely beat Williams over a

small debt. The trial court determined, based on the evidence presented at

trial, that Williams never fully recovered from the injuries inflicted upon

him. The maximum sentence is reserved for the most egregious and

blameworthy offenders. The trial court stated after imposing the maximum

sentence: “[T]his is not your ordinary second degree robbery situation.” We

agree with the trial court’s determination regarding Thompson’s crime and

find that beating a robbery victim so severely that he is left in a vegetative

state in order to rob him of a very small amount of money is the most

egregious and blameworthy form of second degree robbery. The extent of

brutality and resulting damages were clearly contemplated by our legislature

in fashioning a sentencing range that included imprisonment for up to forty 9 years. We agree Thompson’s actions are of the kind, nature, and extent that

the maximum sentence is appropriate. Therefore, we conclude the trial court

did not abuse its discretion in imposing the maximum sentence of 40 years

under these specific facts and circumstances, and Thompson’s sentence

should be affirmed.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the conviction and sentence of the

defendant, Johnny Thompson, Jr., are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.