Judgment rendered June 30, 2021. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 53,968-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
JOSHUA J. WARD Appellant
Appealed from the Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Franklin, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2019447F
Honorable John Clay Hamilton, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Paula Corley Marx
PENNY WISE DOUCIERE Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
CAROLINE HEMPHILL AMANDA MICHELE WILKINS Assistant District Attorneys
Before GARRETT, STONE, and STEPHENS, JJ. STONE, J.
This criminal appeal arises from the Fifth Judicial District Court,
Franklin Parish, the Honorable Clay Hamilton presiding. The defendant,
Joshua J. Ward (“Ward”), pled guilty to aggravated flight from an officer
and was sentenced to 5 years at hard labor. On the same day, Ward pled
guilty to possession of methamphetamine (over 2 grams but less than 28
grams) and was sentenced to 10 years at hard labor. See No. 53,969-KA.
The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with one another. The
defendant now appeals. For the following reasons, Ward’s conviction and
sentence is affirmed.
FACTS
On June 15, 2019, officers of the Winnsboro Police Department
responded to a shooting at the Westwood Apartments in Winnsboro,
Louisiana. As they arrived, officers observed Ward driving away at a high
rate of speed. The officers attempted to stop Ward’s vehicle; however,
Ward refused to comply. After traveling at speeds in excess of 100 mph,
crossing the center line, and traveling into oncoming traffic on Highway 4,
Ward finally stopped. Following the stop, officers searched the vehicle and
found a plastic Glock pistol case and four magazines (two of which
contained .40 caliber ammunition). On the driver’s side floorboard, officers
also found a plastic bag of several multi-colored tablets, which were later
determined to contain methamphetamine. Ward was charged in separate
bills of information with attempted second-degree murder, aggravated flight
from an officer where human life is endangered, and possession of a
Schedule II CDS, methamphetamine (more than 2 grams but less than 28
grams) (No. 53,969-KA). On January 8, 2020, pursuant to a plea agreement, Ward pled guilty to
aggravated flight from an officer and possession of methamphetamine (more
than 2 grams but less than 28 grams). In exchange, the state dismissed the
attempted second-degree murder charge, as well as another unspecified
charge. There was no sentencing agreement, but the parties agreed that
Ward would be sentenced by the trial court after a pre-sentence investigation
(“PSI”) report.
On March 11, 2020, after reviewing the PSI report, the trial court
sentenced Ward to 5 years at hard labor for the aggravated flight from an
officer conviction.1 Defense counsel made a generic, oral objection to the
sentences, and subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which set forth no
specific complaints. The motion was denied. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Ward argues that his aggravated flight from an officer sentence is
unconstitutionally harsh and excessive. He contends that a maximum
sentence is not warranted, as he caused no physical injuries or property
damage during his two-minute flight from officers. Ward further argues that
he is a 28-year-old, second felony offender and is not the worst offender. He
has strong family support to aid in his rehabilitation, has always maintained
employment, attends church regularly, and consistently sees and supports his
two six-year-old children.
The state argues that Ward has failed to establish that the trial court
abused its discretion in its sentence. The state notes that Ward received a
1 The trial court imposed an enhanced sentence of 10 years at hard labor, for the possession of methamphetamine conviction, after determining this was Ward’s second drug offense conviction. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. 2 tremendous benefit when the state dismissed the attempted murder charge
and when the trial judge ordered that the sentences be served concurrently.
An appellate court utilizes a two-pronged test in reviewing a sentence
for excessiveness. 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 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. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983); State v. DeBerry, 50,501
(La. App. 2 Cir. 4/13/16), 194 So. 3d 657, writ denied, 16-0959 (La. 5/1/17),
219 So. 3d 332. 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. 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 La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State v. Lanclos, 419 So. 2d 475
(La. 1982); State v. DeBerry, 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. DeBerry, supra. The trial court is not required to assign
any particular weight to any specific matters at sentencing. State v. Parfait,
52,857 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19), 278 So. 3d 455, writ denied, 19-01659 (La.
12/10/19), 285 So. 3d 489.
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 seriousness of the offense or nothing more
than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. 3 Dorthey, 623 So. 2d 1276 (La. 1993); State v. Bonanno, 384 So. 2d 355 (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;
State v. Meadows, 51,843 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/18), 246 So. 3d 639, writ
denied, 18-0259 (La. 10/29/18), 254 So. 3d 1208.
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered June 30, 2021. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 53,968-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
JOSHUA J. WARD Appellant
Appealed from the Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Franklin, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2019447F
Honorable John Clay Hamilton, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Paula Corley Marx
PENNY WISE DOUCIERE Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
CAROLINE HEMPHILL AMANDA MICHELE WILKINS Assistant District Attorneys
Before GARRETT, STONE, and STEPHENS, JJ. STONE, J.
This criminal appeal arises from the Fifth Judicial District Court,
Franklin Parish, the Honorable Clay Hamilton presiding. The defendant,
Joshua J. Ward (“Ward”), pled guilty to aggravated flight from an officer
and was sentenced to 5 years at hard labor. On the same day, Ward pled
guilty to possession of methamphetamine (over 2 grams but less than 28
grams) and was sentenced to 10 years at hard labor. See No. 53,969-KA.
The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with one another. The
defendant now appeals. For the following reasons, Ward’s conviction and
sentence is affirmed.
FACTS
On June 15, 2019, officers of the Winnsboro Police Department
responded to a shooting at the Westwood Apartments in Winnsboro,
Louisiana. As they arrived, officers observed Ward driving away at a high
rate of speed. The officers attempted to stop Ward’s vehicle; however,
Ward refused to comply. After traveling at speeds in excess of 100 mph,
crossing the center line, and traveling into oncoming traffic on Highway 4,
Ward finally stopped. Following the stop, officers searched the vehicle and
found a plastic Glock pistol case and four magazines (two of which
contained .40 caliber ammunition). On the driver’s side floorboard, officers
also found a plastic bag of several multi-colored tablets, which were later
determined to contain methamphetamine. Ward was charged in separate
bills of information with attempted second-degree murder, aggravated flight
from an officer where human life is endangered, and possession of a
Schedule II CDS, methamphetamine (more than 2 grams but less than 28
grams) (No. 53,969-KA). On January 8, 2020, pursuant to a plea agreement, Ward pled guilty to
aggravated flight from an officer and possession of methamphetamine (more
than 2 grams but less than 28 grams). In exchange, the state dismissed the
attempted second-degree murder charge, as well as another unspecified
charge. There was no sentencing agreement, but the parties agreed that
Ward would be sentenced by the trial court after a pre-sentence investigation
(“PSI”) report.
On March 11, 2020, after reviewing the PSI report, the trial court
sentenced Ward to 5 years at hard labor for the aggravated flight from an
officer conviction.1 Defense counsel made a generic, oral objection to the
sentences, and subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which set forth no
specific complaints. The motion was denied. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Ward argues that his aggravated flight from an officer sentence is
unconstitutionally harsh and excessive. He contends that a maximum
sentence is not warranted, as he caused no physical injuries or property
damage during his two-minute flight from officers. Ward further argues that
he is a 28-year-old, second felony offender and is not the worst offender. He
has strong family support to aid in his rehabilitation, has always maintained
employment, attends church regularly, and consistently sees and supports his
two six-year-old children.
The state argues that Ward has failed to establish that the trial court
abused its discretion in its sentence. The state notes that Ward received a
1 The trial court imposed an enhanced sentence of 10 years at hard labor, for the possession of methamphetamine conviction, after determining this was Ward’s second drug offense conviction. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. 2 tremendous benefit when the state dismissed the attempted murder charge
and when the trial judge ordered that the sentences be served concurrently.
An appellate court utilizes a two-pronged test in reviewing a sentence
for excessiveness. 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 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. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983); State v. DeBerry, 50,501
(La. App. 2 Cir. 4/13/16), 194 So. 3d 657, writ denied, 16-0959 (La. 5/1/17),
219 So. 3d 332. 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. 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 La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State v. Lanclos, 419 So. 2d 475
(La. 1982); State v. DeBerry, 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. DeBerry, supra. The trial court is not required to assign
any particular weight to any specific matters at sentencing. State v. Parfait,
52,857 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19), 278 So. 3d 455, writ denied, 19-01659 (La.
12/10/19), 285 So. 3d 489.
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 seriousness of the offense or nothing more
than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. 3 Dorthey, 623 So. 2d 1276 (La. 1993); State v. Bonanno, 384 So. 2d 355 (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;
State v. Meadows, 51,843 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/18), 246 So. 3d 639, writ
denied, 18-0259 (La. 10/29/18), 254 So. 3d 1208.
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. 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. 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. Allen, supra. On review, an
appellate court does not determine whether another sentence may have been
more appropriate, but whether the trial court abused its discretion. State v.
Adams, 53,055 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/20/19), 285 So. 3d 526.
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. Hogan, 47,993 (La. App. 2 Cir.
4/10/13), 113 So. 3d 1195, writ denied, 13-0977 (La. 11/8/13), 125 So. 3d
445.
The defendant’s receipt of a substantial advantage via plea bargain is
an appropriate consideration in sentencing. Accordingly, where the
defendant has pled guilty to an offense which does not adequately describe
his conduct or has received a significant reduction in sentencing exposure 4 through a plea bargain, the trial court has great discretion in imposing even
the maximum sentence for the pled offense. State v. Washington, 52,518
(La. App. 2 Cir. 2/27/19), 266 So. 3d 430, writ denied, 19-00776 (La.
10/21/19), 280 So. 3d 1174.
La. R.S. 14:108.1(E) provides that a person convicted of aggravated
flight from an officer shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than
five years and may be fined not more than $2,000.00.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court reviewed the PSI report, the
facts of this case, and the applicable sentencing factors set forth in La. C. Cr.
P. art. 894.1. The trial court gave sufficient weight to each of the applicable
aggravating and mitigating factors and the record adequately supports the
sentence imposed.
The trial court reviewed Ward’s criminal history as follows: In 2008,
Ward was arrested for discharging firearms where prohibited, disturbing the
peace, and aggravated second degree battery; he pled guilty to aggravated
second degree battery and was sentenced to six years at hard labor, with five
years and three months suspended, and five years of probation. While Ward
was on probation, in 2012, he was arrested for possession of marijuana,
simple battery, and aggravated assault; he pled guilty to possession of
marijuana and simple battery, and was sentenced to 90 days on each charge.
At that time, his probation was revoked and he was remanded to serve the
original six-year sentence. Ward was released on parole in May 2017, and
was arrested for the instant offenses in June 2019, while still on parole. The
trial court stated that Ward has been unable to successfully complete any
significant period of probation or parole, that his prior criminal activity was
5 not abated or tempered by his previous entitlement to probation or parole,
and that his prior offenses involved firearms and crimes against the person.
The trial court noted that Ward’s conduct threatened, caused, or could
have caused serious harm, that Ward was again involved in conduct which
involved harm to a person and firearms, that the victims did not induce or
facilitate the commission of the crimes, and that there was no indication that
Ward’s imprisonment would entail any excessive hardship to himself or his
dependents. The trial court found that Ward was unwilling to accept
responsibility for his actions, and referencing Ward’s statement, found that
Ward’s history of criminal conduct indicates that he will continue to be in
the wrong place at the wrong time in the future. Further, the trial court
stated that Ward substantially benefitted from the plea agreement and
reduced sentence exposure, as he was charged with attempted second-degree
murder, which, carries up to 50 years imprisonment. In essence, Ward
avoided a potential lengthy sentence.
Ward’s sentence is not constitutionally excessive, nor does it shock
the sense of justice, or is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the
offense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Ward to 5
years at hard labor for aggravated flight from an officer. The trial court
appropriately considered Ward’s criminal history and the benefit he received
from the plea agreement.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Joshua Ward’s sentence is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.