Judgment rendered December 17, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 56,719-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
JOSHUA JONES Appellant
Appealed from the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Bossier, Louisiana Trial Court No. 249,615
Honorable Michael Nerren, Judge
LOUISIANA APPEALS AND WRIT Counsel for Appellant SERVICE By: Remy V. Starns Michael A. Mitchell Mary E. Roper
J. SCHUYLER MARVIN Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
RICHARD R. RAY CODY ALLEN BOYD Assistant District Attorneys
Before PITMAN, STONE, and COX, JJ. PITMAN, C. J.
A jury convicted Defendant Joshua Jones of molestation of a juvenile.
The trial court sentenced him to serve seven years at hard labor. Defendant
appeals his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm his conviction
and sentence.
FACTS
On December 20, 2023, the state filed a bill of information charging
Defendant with one count of molestation of a juvenile in violation of La.
R.S. 14:81.2(A)(1) and (B)(1). It alleged that on or about October 26, 2023,
Defendant committed a lewd or lascivious act upon the person or in the
presence of A.S. Defendant pled not guilty.
A jury trial began on February 25, 2025. A.S. testified that in October
2023, she was 16 years old and had an after-school job at Pizza Hut in
Haughton. On October 26, 2023, she arrived at work at 4:30 p.m. for a five-
hour shift. A.S. was alone in the building with Defendant, her manager,
while other employees were delivering pizzas or on a break. He sprayed her
with silly string, which was an ongoing prank among employees. She
explained that “[w]e were kind of messing around and he just kind of
grabbed me and dragged me a little bit.” She testified that he then “kind of
started getting on top of me and dragging me to the freezer. . . . He was
putting his hands down my shirt. . . . His hands are in my bra, cupping my
breast.” She explained that she was scared and trying to process what
happened but thought Defendant’s hand slipped accidentally. A.S. testified
that Defendant helped a customer and then returned to where she was,
picked her up again and “more forcefully drug” her into the freezer. She
stated that “his hands are down my shirt again. I feel like every piece of my body was being touched by him. His hands were everywhere.” She
described the second time in the freezer as “more aggressive,” that he
touched her nipples and that he told her to relax. She pushed away from
him, he let go and she ran out of the freezer to the front door. She noted that
both incidents happened within a span of five to ten minutes. She saw a
coworker in the parking lot, so she met him at his car and told him what
happened. He recommended that she call her parents and law enforcement,
which she did. After law enforcement arrived, she told them what happened
and then an officer transported her to the police station to give a statement.
At a later date she was interviewed at the Gingerbread House.1 A.S.
identified recordings taken from Pizza Hut’s security cameras on October
26, 2023, and the jury viewed this footage.2 A.S. identified Defendant on
the recording and in the courtroom.
Ofc. Allen Rothery of the Haughton Police Department testified that
on October 26, 2023, he received a dispatch regarding a possible assault at
Pizza Hut. He arrived on the scene at approximately 9:08 p.m. and spoke to
A.S. who was “visibly shaking and obviously upset.” He stated that A.S.,
whose birthday is July 24, 2007, was 16 years old at the time of the incident
and that Defendant, whose birthday is May 31, 1976, was 47 years old.
On February 26, 2025, the jury found Defendant guilty as charged of
molestation of a juvenile.
1 The jury viewed the recording of this interview in which she provided information consistent with her trial testimony including that Defendant put his hands down her shirt, touched the inside of her bra and cupped her breasts. 2 The recording shows Defendant and A.S. horseplaying with silly string. Defendant picks A.S. up and pulls her into the freezer. They exit the freezer and return to working. Defendant returns, picks A.S. up and pushes her into the freezer. They exit the freezer and A.S. runs out of the area shown on the recording, away from Defendant. 2 A sentencing hearing was held on May 29, 2025. The trial court
noted that it reviewed the presentence investigation report. It discussed the
victim impact statement by A.S.’s father in which he stated that A.S. needed
therapy in response to the attack and requested that Defendant receive the
maximum sentence allowed. The trial court stated that Defendant had a
limited criminal history, i.e., that he pled guilty to simple burglary in 1994.
It detailed his family, education and employment histories, i.e., that he had
been married since 2001, he had six children and four grandchildren, he
graduated from high school and attended some college and that he worked in
the food industry as a regional manager. Defendant chose to make a
statement and recalled that he hired A.S. as a “present” for her 16th birthday.
He admitted to doing “a lot of horse playing” with employees but that he
should have been more professional. He admitted to taking “it overboard,”
stated that he took “accountability for everything” and wished to apologize
to A.S. and her parents. He noted that he has daughters and sisters and
would not want anyone touching them inappropriately. The trial court
responded that Defendant was not taking responsibility for his actions
because he categorized what happened as horseplay, which is not consistent
with the evidence presented at trial. The trial court also noted the damage
done to Defendant’s family and that three of his family members wrote
letters on his behalf. It then stated that it considered the elements of La. C.
Cr. P. art. 894.1 and found that a lesser sentence would deprecate the serious
nature of the crime. It reviewed the sentencing range and sentenced
Defendant to serve seven years at hard labor with credit for time served.
Defendant appeals.
3 DISCUSSION
In his sole assignment of error, Defendant argues that the trial court
imposed a constitutionally excessive sentence and that a five-year sentence
would be sufficient. He notes as mitigating factors that he only had one
prior criminal conviction, and there was a lengthy period between the two
offenses; that his family attested to his character; and that he accepted
responsibility for the harm he caused and showed remorse. He contends that
although his actions were reprehensible, they were not as egregious as those
in other cases. He explains that the actions in this case occurred during a
short period of time and were perpetrated against a 16-year-old, who is not
as vulnerable or helpless as a younger victim.
The state argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when
imposing the seven-year sentence. It states that the court had the benefit of a
presentence investigation report; that the court adequately considered the
guidelines of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and gave reasons for the sentence; and
that the seven-year sentence was closer to the minimum rather than the
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. 56,719-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
JOSHUA JONES Appellant
Appealed from the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Bossier, Louisiana Trial Court No. 249,615
Honorable Michael Nerren, Judge
LOUISIANA APPEALS AND WRIT Counsel for Appellant SERVICE By: Remy V. Starns Michael A. Mitchell Mary E. Roper
J. SCHUYLER MARVIN Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
RICHARD R. RAY CODY ALLEN BOYD Assistant District Attorneys
Before PITMAN, STONE, and COX, JJ. PITMAN, C. J.
A jury convicted Defendant Joshua Jones of molestation of a juvenile.
The trial court sentenced him to serve seven years at hard labor. Defendant
appeals his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm his conviction
and sentence.
FACTS
On December 20, 2023, the state filed a bill of information charging
Defendant with one count of molestation of a juvenile in violation of La.
R.S. 14:81.2(A)(1) and (B)(1). It alleged that on or about October 26, 2023,
Defendant committed a lewd or lascivious act upon the person or in the
presence of A.S. Defendant pled not guilty.
A jury trial began on February 25, 2025. A.S. testified that in October
2023, she was 16 years old and had an after-school job at Pizza Hut in
Haughton. On October 26, 2023, she arrived at work at 4:30 p.m. for a five-
hour shift. A.S. was alone in the building with Defendant, her manager,
while other employees were delivering pizzas or on a break. He sprayed her
with silly string, which was an ongoing prank among employees. She
explained that “[w]e were kind of messing around and he just kind of
grabbed me and dragged me a little bit.” She testified that he then “kind of
started getting on top of me and dragging me to the freezer. . . . He was
putting his hands down my shirt. . . . His hands are in my bra, cupping my
breast.” She explained that she was scared and trying to process what
happened but thought Defendant’s hand slipped accidentally. A.S. testified
that Defendant helped a customer and then returned to where she was,
picked her up again and “more forcefully drug” her into the freezer. She
stated that “his hands are down my shirt again. I feel like every piece of my body was being touched by him. His hands were everywhere.” She
described the second time in the freezer as “more aggressive,” that he
touched her nipples and that he told her to relax. She pushed away from
him, he let go and she ran out of the freezer to the front door. She noted that
both incidents happened within a span of five to ten minutes. She saw a
coworker in the parking lot, so she met him at his car and told him what
happened. He recommended that she call her parents and law enforcement,
which she did. After law enforcement arrived, she told them what happened
and then an officer transported her to the police station to give a statement.
At a later date she was interviewed at the Gingerbread House.1 A.S.
identified recordings taken from Pizza Hut’s security cameras on October
26, 2023, and the jury viewed this footage.2 A.S. identified Defendant on
the recording and in the courtroom.
Ofc. Allen Rothery of the Haughton Police Department testified that
on October 26, 2023, he received a dispatch regarding a possible assault at
Pizza Hut. He arrived on the scene at approximately 9:08 p.m. and spoke to
A.S. who was “visibly shaking and obviously upset.” He stated that A.S.,
whose birthday is July 24, 2007, was 16 years old at the time of the incident
and that Defendant, whose birthday is May 31, 1976, was 47 years old.
On February 26, 2025, the jury found Defendant guilty as charged of
molestation of a juvenile.
1 The jury viewed the recording of this interview in which she provided information consistent with her trial testimony including that Defendant put his hands down her shirt, touched the inside of her bra and cupped her breasts. 2 The recording shows Defendant and A.S. horseplaying with silly string. Defendant picks A.S. up and pulls her into the freezer. They exit the freezer and return to working. Defendant returns, picks A.S. up and pushes her into the freezer. They exit the freezer and A.S. runs out of the area shown on the recording, away from Defendant. 2 A sentencing hearing was held on May 29, 2025. The trial court
noted that it reviewed the presentence investigation report. It discussed the
victim impact statement by A.S.’s father in which he stated that A.S. needed
therapy in response to the attack and requested that Defendant receive the
maximum sentence allowed. The trial court stated that Defendant had a
limited criminal history, i.e., that he pled guilty to simple burglary in 1994.
It detailed his family, education and employment histories, i.e., that he had
been married since 2001, he had six children and four grandchildren, he
graduated from high school and attended some college and that he worked in
the food industry as a regional manager. Defendant chose to make a
statement and recalled that he hired A.S. as a “present” for her 16th birthday.
He admitted to doing “a lot of horse playing” with employees but that he
should have been more professional. He admitted to taking “it overboard,”
stated that he took “accountability for everything” and wished to apologize
to A.S. and her parents. He noted that he has daughters and sisters and
would not want anyone touching them inappropriately. The trial court
responded that Defendant was not taking responsibility for his actions
because he categorized what happened as horseplay, which is not consistent
with the evidence presented at trial. The trial court also noted the damage
done to Defendant’s family and that three of his family members wrote
letters on his behalf. It then stated that it considered the elements of La. C.
Cr. P. art. 894.1 and found that a lesser sentence would deprecate the serious
nature of the crime. It reviewed the sentencing range and sentenced
Defendant to serve seven years at hard labor with credit for time served.
Defendant appeals.
3 DISCUSSION
In his sole assignment of error, Defendant argues that the trial court
imposed a constitutionally excessive sentence and that a five-year sentence
would be sufficient. He notes as mitigating factors that he only had one
prior criminal conviction, and there was a lengthy period between the two
offenses; that his family attested to his character; and that he accepted
responsibility for the harm he caused and showed remorse. He contends that
although his actions were reprehensible, they were not as egregious as those
in other cases. He explains that the actions in this case occurred during a
short period of time and were perpetrated against a 16-year-old, who is not
as vulnerable or helpless as a younger victim.
The state argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when
imposing the seven-year sentence. It states that the court had the benefit of a
presentence investigation report; that the court adequately considered the
guidelines of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and gave reasons for the sentence; and
that the seven-year sentence was closer to the minimum rather than the
maximum of the sentencing range. The state contends that the sentence is
not excessive due to the aggravating factors of the young age of the victim
and Defendant’s position of control and influence over her as her supervisor.
An appellate court utilizes a two-pronged test in reviewing a sentence
for excessiveness. First, the record must show that the trial court complied
with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983). The
trial judge need not articulate every aggravating and mitigating circumstance
outlined in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, but the record must reflect that he
adequately considered these guidelines in particularizing the sentence to the
defendant. Id. The important elements the trial court should consider are 4 the defendant’s personal history, prior criminal record, seriousness of
offense and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049
(La. 1981). There is no requirement that specific matters be given any
particular weight at sentencing. 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.
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.
Smith, 01-2574 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So. 2d 1, citing State v. Bonanno, 384 So.
2d 355 (La. 1980).
The trial court has wide discretion in the imposition of sentences
within statutory limits, and the sentence imposed should not be set aside as
excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion. State v.
Abercrumbia, 412 So. 2d 1027 (La. 1982). 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.
Williams, 03-3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So. 2d 7, citing State v. Cook, 95-
2784 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So. 2d 957.
Whoever commits the crime of molestation of a juvenile, when the
victim is 13 years of age or older but has not yet attained the age of 17, shall
be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for
not less than five nor more than ten years, or both. La. R.S. 14:81.2(B)(1).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Defendant to
a midrange sentence of seven years at hard labor and not imposing a fine.
The record reflects that the trial court complied with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 5 and particularized the sentence to Defendant. It detailed the information
provided in the presentence investigation report, including Defendant’s
limited criminal history and the impact of the crime on the victim. The
sentence imposed is not grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of the
offense when considering the ages of Defendant and the minor victim,
Defendant’s position of influence over the victim as her supervisor and
Defendant’s lascivious acts upon the victim.
Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence of
Defendant Joshua Jones.
AFFIRMED.