Judgment rendered November 20, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,858-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
KEANNA GILBERT WALKER Appellant
Appealed from the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Bossier, Louisiana Trial Court No. 247,766
Honorable Michael Owens Craig, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Douglas Lee Harville
J. SCHUYLER MARVIN Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
RICHARD RUSSELL RAY ROBERT RANDALL SMITH Assistant District Attorneys
Before STONE, COX and HUNTER, JJ. STONE, J.
This appeal arises from the Twenty-sixth Judicial District Court, the
Honorable Michael O. Craig presiding. The defendant, Keanna Gilbert
Walker (“Walker”), was charged by a bill of information with theft of a
motor vehicle, a violation of La. R.S. 14:67.26. Walker pled guilty as
charged and was sentenced to 5 years, imprisonment at hard labor with all
but 1 year suspended and 2 years of active supervised probation. Walker
appealed, asserting that her sentence was excessive and unconstitutionally
harsh. For the following reasons, we affirm the sentence of the trial court.
FACTS
On February 17, 2023, Walker, an employee of the Sonic drive-in
restaurant in Haughton, Louisiana, told a coworker, Jameion Franklin
(“victim”), that she would like to put a few things in his vehicle and asked
for his keys. After receiving the keys to his 2018 Honda Civic, Walker left
the premises in the victim’s vehicle without his permission and never
returned. Realizing that Walker had not come back inside the restaurant, the
victim called Walker’s cell phone to tell her to return his vehicle. According
to the victim, Walker said she was at a local Walmart. After the initial call,
the victim continued to call and text Walker, but his calls and texts went
unanswered. Nearly two weeks later, the victim’s vehicle was discovered by
police at an apartment complex in Austin, Texas. Walker was subsequently
arrested and on July 13, 2023, was charged with theft of a motor vehicle in
violation of La. R.S. 14:67.26 (C)(2).
On August 10, 2023, Walker appeared in court with her attorney and
pled guilty. There was no agreed-upon sentence in the plea arrangement and a presentence investigation (“PSI”) report was ordered by the court.1 On
November 9, 2023, the trial court sentenced Walker to 5 years,
imprisonment at hard labor with all but 1 year suspended, and 2 years of
active supervised probation. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion
for reconsideration of sentence on November 16, 2023. This appeal
followed.
DISCUSSION
Walker argues that her sentence is excessive and unconstitutionally
harsh and there was no evidence that she would respond more positively if
she were placed on probation for two years after serving a 1-year prison
sentence. She further asserts that the victim in this case suffered no
economic loss, and her 1-year period of imprisonment is a sufficient
deterrent to any further crimes. Walker claims that her sentence makes no
reasonable contribution to acceptable penal goals and asks this court to
vacate the probated portion of her sentence.
The state argues that Walker received less than a fifth of the
maximum sentence. According to La. R.S. 14:67.26 (C)(2), the maximum
sentence for theft of a motor vehicle is ten years. Additionally, the state
argues that Walker has prior convictions in the state of Texas, including a
misdemeanor conviction for assault and a conviction for unauthorized use of
a motor vehicle just two months prior to the instant conviction. Lastly, the
state asserts that any lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the
crime.
The presentence investigation report shows that in 2018, Walker was charged 1
with stalking but was ultimately sent through diversion and the charged was dismissed. In 2022, she had a misdemeanor conviction of assault, and in 2023, she had a felony conviction of unauthorized use of a vehicle. All previous charges were in the state of Texas. 2 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, 20-00745 (La.
11/19/19) 282 So. 3d 1065. First, the record must show that the trial court
took cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. Cr. C. P. 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.
To assess a claim that a sentence violates La. Const. art. I, § 20, the
appellate court must determine if the sentence is grossly disproportionate to
the seriousness of the offense or nothing more than a purposeless and
needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. 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 sentencing court has wide discretion to
impose a sentence within the statutory limits, and the sentence imposed will
not be set aside as excessive absent a manifest abuse of that discretion. State
v. Williams, 03-3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So. 2d 7. On review, an appellate 3 court does not determine whether another sentence may have been more
appropriate, but whether the trial court abused its discretion. State v.
Gaines, 54,383 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/22/23), 358 So. 3d 194, writ denied, 23-
00363 (La. 6/21/23), 362 So. 3d 428; State v. Tubbs, 52, 417 (La. App. 2
Cir. 11/20/19), 285 So. 3d 536, writ denied, 20-00307 (La. 7/31/20), 300 So.
3d 404, on recons., 20-00307 (La. 9/8/20), 301 So. 3d 30, writ denied, 20-
00307 (La. 9/8/20), 301 So. 3d 30.
There is no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in the
present case. Only half of the maximum sentence was imposed on Walker,
which is appropriate given the rapid progression in which Walker was
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered November 20, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,858-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
KEANNA GILBERT WALKER Appellant
Appealed from the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Bossier, Louisiana Trial Court No. 247,766
Honorable Michael Owens Craig, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Douglas Lee Harville
J. SCHUYLER MARVIN Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
RICHARD RUSSELL RAY ROBERT RANDALL SMITH Assistant District Attorneys
Before STONE, COX and HUNTER, JJ. STONE, J.
This appeal arises from the Twenty-sixth Judicial District Court, the
Honorable Michael O. Craig presiding. The defendant, Keanna Gilbert
Walker (“Walker”), was charged by a bill of information with theft of a
motor vehicle, a violation of La. R.S. 14:67.26. Walker pled guilty as
charged and was sentenced to 5 years, imprisonment at hard labor with all
but 1 year suspended and 2 years of active supervised probation. Walker
appealed, asserting that her sentence was excessive and unconstitutionally
harsh. For the following reasons, we affirm the sentence of the trial court.
FACTS
On February 17, 2023, Walker, an employee of the Sonic drive-in
restaurant in Haughton, Louisiana, told a coworker, Jameion Franklin
(“victim”), that she would like to put a few things in his vehicle and asked
for his keys. After receiving the keys to his 2018 Honda Civic, Walker left
the premises in the victim’s vehicle without his permission and never
returned. Realizing that Walker had not come back inside the restaurant, the
victim called Walker’s cell phone to tell her to return his vehicle. According
to the victim, Walker said she was at a local Walmart. After the initial call,
the victim continued to call and text Walker, but his calls and texts went
unanswered. Nearly two weeks later, the victim’s vehicle was discovered by
police at an apartment complex in Austin, Texas. Walker was subsequently
arrested and on July 13, 2023, was charged with theft of a motor vehicle in
violation of La. R.S. 14:67.26 (C)(2).
On August 10, 2023, Walker appeared in court with her attorney and
pled guilty. There was no agreed-upon sentence in the plea arrangement and a presentence investigation (“PSI”) report was ordered by the court.1 On
November 9, 2023, the trial court sentenced Walker to 5 years,
imprisonment at hard labor with all but 1 year suspended, and 2 years of
active supervised probation. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion
for reconsideration of sentence on November 16, 2023. This appeal
followed.
DISCUSSION
Walker argues that her sentence is excessive and unconstitutionally
harsh and there was no evidence that she would respond more positively if
she were placed on probation for two years after serving a 1-year prison
sentence. She further asserts that the victim in this case suffered no
economic loss, and her 1-year period of imprisonment is a sufficient
deterrent to any further crimes. Walker claims that her sentence makes no
reasonable contribution to acceptable penal goals and asks this court to
vacate the probated portion of her sentence.
The state argues that Walker received less than a fifth of the
maximum sentence. According to La. R.S. 14:67.26 (C)(2), the maximum
sentence for theft of a motor vehicle is ten years. Additionally, the state
argues that Walker has prior convictions in the state of Texas, including a
misdemeanor conviction for assault and a conviction for unauthorized use of
a motor vehicle just two months prior to the instant conviction. Lastly, the
state asserts that any lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the
crime.
The presentence investigation report shows that in 2018, Walker was charged 1
with stalking but was ultimately sent through diversion and the charged was dismissed. In 2022, she had a misdemeanor conviction of assault, and in 2023, she had a felony conviction of unauthorized use of a vehicle. All previous charges were in the state of Texas. 2 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, 20-00745 (La.
11/19/19) 282 So. 3d 1065. First, the record must show that the trial court
took cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. Cr. C. P. 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.
To assess a claim that a sentence violates La. Const. art. I, § 20, the
appellate court must determine if the sentence is grossly disproportionate to
the seriousness of the offense or nothing more than a purposeless and
needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. 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 sentencing court has wide discretion to
impose a sentence within the statutory limits, and the sentence imposed will
not be set aside as excessive absent a manifest abuse of that discretion. State
v. Williams, 03-3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So. 2d 7. On review, an appellate 3 court does not determine whether another sentence may have been more
appropriate, but whether the trial court abused its discretion. State v.
Gaines, 54,383 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/22/23), 358 So. 3d 194, writ denied, 23-
00363 (La. 6/21/23), 362 So. 3d 428; State v. Tubbs, 52, 417 (La. App. 2
Cir. 11/20/19), 285 So. 3d 536, writ denied, 20-00307 (La. 7/31/20), 300 So.
3d 404, on recons., 20-00307 (La. 9/8/20), 301 So. 3d 30, writ denied, 20-
00307 (La. 9/8/20), 301 So. 3d 30.
There is no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in the
present case. Only half of the maximum sentence was imposed on Walker,
which is appropriate given the rapid progression in which Walker was
convicted of two felonies involving the use and taking of vehicles that did
not belong to her. Walker contends there is no evidence that she would be
more likely to commit further crimes if she were not monitored on probation
after her imprisonment. There is, however, more than enough evidence to
suggest that Walker is inclined to commit such acts without such
monitoring. Walker was 22 years old at the time of her sentencing.
This court is of the belief that Walker could further benefit from
probation after serving 1 year in prison as a rehabilitative measure due to her
young age and her propensity for using and taking vehicles that do not
belong to her. The trial court considered Walker’s youth but balanced that
factor against the severity of the offense and the pattern of similar offenses
exhibited by her. Prior to imposing the sentence on Walker, the trial court
considered the guidelines of Article 894.1 and the PSI submitted to the court
on Walker’s behalf. While pointing out that Walker had a slew of other
charges, albeit in a different state, the trial court noted that in addition to the
conviction in the present case for theft of a motor vehicle, Walker had a 4 prior felony conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The trial
court thoroughly reviewed and applied the appropriate sentencing factors.
Based on the record, the sentence imposed does not shock the sense of
justice. Thus, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion.
CONCLUSION
Walker’s conviction and sentence of 5 years imprisonment at hard
labor with all but 1 year suspended, and 2 years of active supervised
probation is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.