Judgment rendered December 17, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 56,621-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
LAQUINTON ECKLES Appellant
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 390,096
Honorable Donald Edgar Hathaway, Jr., Judge
LOUISIANA APPEALS AND WRIT Counsel for Appellant SERVICE By: Christopher Albert Aberle
LAQUINTON ECKLES Pro Se
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
ERIC MATTHEW WHITEHEAD ASHLIN NICOLE THOMAS Assistant District Attorneys
Before STONE, STEPHENS, and ROBINSON, JJ. ROBINSON, J.
Having been convicted by a jury of molestation of a juvenile and
indecent behavior with juveniles, Laquinton Eckles appeals his convictions
and sentences. For the following reasons, we affirm his convictions and
sentences, and remand for a correction of the minutes.
FACTS
Eckles and Ko’rese Clay attended the same high school and later
worked together. Clay became pregnant with Eckles’s child after a brief
relationship. The child, S.L., was born extremely premature on January 25,
2007. S.L. suffered multiple strokes and bleeding on the brain while she
was a newborn. She was six months old before she was released from the
hospital. She was diagnosed with cognitive developmental delay and has
grand mal seizures, cerebral palsy, and learning issues. She has received at-
home counseling three to four times a week for five years.
Eckles found out that S.L. was his daughter in 2009. He had scant
contact with S.L. until Easter Sunday, 2022. On that day, Clay left S.L. with
him for a few hours. At the beginning of May, Clay allowed S.L. to spend a
night with Eckles and his girlfriend. On Mother’s Day in 2022, Eckles went
to Clay’s house with his girlfriend and son. Eckles left with S.L. and
promised to return her by 9:00 p.m., but did not return home until after
midnight.
The following day, S.L. asked her mother if she could buy her razors
to shave her private area. Clay, who was alarmed by this request, contacted
S.L.’s counselor and asked her to speak with S.L.
The counselor, Mackisha Brumant, met with S.L. that day. S.L. told
her that she had spent the weekend with her father, he made her feel uncomfortable by discussing sex with her, she touched his private parts, and
he smelled her private parts. S.L. also had journal entries about the incident.
Brumant disclosed the allegations to the Department of Children and
Family Services (“DCFS”) and to Clay. The Shreveport Police Department
(“SPD”) began an investigation and S.L. was interviewed at the Gingerbread
House Children’s Advocacy Center.
Jordan Hughes conducted the interview at the Gingerbread House.
Hughes began by asking S.L. about her home life. S.L. replied that she
hated her mother and stepfather, it was terrible to live with them, and her
mom and father did “weird ass shit” like having sex. S.L. told Hughes that
her father (Eckles) had talked to her about sex and made a move on her on
Mother’s Day. S.L. stated that they went to his sister’s apartment in
Shreveport after he left his girlfriend and his son. Eckles did cocaine in
front of her there. She and Eckles were the only people at the apartment.
He later told her that he wanted to sniff cocaine off her butt.
She told Hughes that while they were in the kitchen, Eckles asked her
for a hug, then he lifted her shirt and removed her bra. He touched her
breasts. She told him to stop and went to a couch in the living room. Eckles
followed her, pulled down his pants, and started rubbing his penis. He asked
S.L. if she felt wet, then grabbed her hand and forced her to touch his penis.
When she wanted to watch anime, he told her to search for anime
pornography. She viewed girls making out. While she was standing in front
of Eckles, he pulled down her pants and panties and sniffed her vagina. She
thought he was trying to insert his penis in her. She asked to go home.
On the way home, they stopped at a Whataburger restaurant. She told
Hughes that Eckles pulled out his penis and asked her if she wanted to see 2 where the “white stuff” came from. He began rubbing on his penis and she
saw a little “white stuff.” He took her home from Whataburger.
Hughes presented two pages of journal entries written by S.L. and had
S.L. read them aloud. She had written that on last Saturday, her dad touched
her down there and he took her bra off, he kept touching her and feeling on
her butt, and it was a weird thing to talk about sex. Hughes questioned her
about her writing that her dad had touched her down there. When Hughes
asked where her dad put his hand, she pointed to her pelvic region and said
he started to feel around. She also said his hand went inside her down there.
Eckles was charged by an amended bill of information with one count
of molestation of a juvenile in violation of La. R.S. 14:81.2(B)(2) and with
one count of indecent behavior with juveniles in violation of La. R.S.
14:81(A)(1). On the first count, it was alleged that he had committed
multiple lewd or lascivious acts upon the person or in the presence of S.L.,
his 15-year-old daughter. On the second count, it was alleged that he had
made S.L. watch pornography in his presence, sniffed S.L.’s vagina, and
asked S.L. if he could sniff cocaine off her butt.
A trial was held on January 28, 2025. Clay recounted the difficulties
of S.L.’s birth and the lingering effects. Clay testified that Eckles was not
involved in S.L.’s life. She would reach out to him on social media about
events in S.L.’s life, but he might not respond for several months.
Clay saw Eckles while driving through Mansfield on Easter Sunday in
2022, so she stopped briefly to speak with him. She allowed Eckles to take
S.L., and he returned her to Shreveport within an hour as he had promised.
He was with a female and his son at the time. A few weeks later, she called
Eckles concerning S.L. He kept S.L. overnight on that weekend. 3 Mother’s Day weekend was the next weekend. Eckles came to her
house at around 5:00 p.m. After she and her husband spoke with Eckles for
a couple of hours, Eckles left with S.L. at around 7:00 p.m. with the
understanding that he was to return her by 9:00 p.m. Eckles said they would
get S.L.’s hair braided, visit his mother, and then return. Clay described her
efforts to reach Eckles by telephone, text messages, and social media when
he did not return S.L. as promised. Eckles returned S.L. after midnight.
Clay found S.L. to be quiet when she returned home, but Clay’s attention
was focused more on getting Eckles to explain what had happened.
Clay testified that when she brought S.L. to school that Monday
morning, S.L. asked for razors to shave her private area. Clay was alarmed
by this, so she called S.L.’s counselor and asked if she would speak to S.L.
about what had happened with Eckles and why S.L. was suddenly interested
in shaving. That Friday, Clay learned what had occurred.
Clay testified that she told workers from DCFS that S.L. has trouble
formulating sentences or getting her thoughts together when she becomes
riled up.
Mackisha Brumant was S.L.’s behavioral health counselor. She
testified that after she explored the matter with S.L. to obtain further details,
she reported the abuse to her supervisor. Her supervisor told her to make a
mandatory report to DCFS, which she did on Friday. She also told S.L.’s
mother.
Jordan Hughes conducted interviews at the Gingerbread House. She
testified as an expert in the field of forensic interviewing. A detective
observed S.L.’s interview from another room, but she could not recall if he
4 communicated with her during the interview. The video of the interview
was played while she was on the witness stand.
Hughes noticed that S.L. would often change the conversation while
in the middle of a disclosure, but added that it was normal for a child to
deflect while disclosing abuse. Hughes was presented with two pages of
journal entries and testified about the content of what was disclosed by S.L.
Hughes testified that when S.L. mentioned that her mother and
stepfather engaged in weird behavior, S.L. referred to sex before disclosing
Eckles’s sexual abuse of her. Hughes did not want to interrupt her in the
middle of her disclosure. Hughes testified that while she had to bring S.L.
back to their conversation many times because she deflected a lot during the
interview, she thought S.L. responded to her questions in an appropriate
manner and was able to keep a conversation with her.
David Karam was an investigator with SPD’s sex crimes division. He
was assigned the case on May 26, 2022, after it was reported on May 14,
2022. Karam set up and observed the interview at the Gingerbread House.
He asked Hughes to question S.L. in greater detail about the cocaine use and
about Eckles touching her vagina. After the interview, he spoke with Clay,
and then he obtained an arrest warrant. He testified that Eckles’s date of
birth is May 12, 1986.
Corporal Emmett Gafford was a patrol officer with SPD. He was
dispatched to a sexual assault call on May 14, 2022. Clay told him that she
had read S.L.’s journals and discovered that S.L.’s father had touched her
inappropriately. He then contacted the sex crimes division.
S.L. testified that she was born on January 25 and was 18 at the time
of trial. She identified her journal pages. She denied that her stepfather 5 touched her in any way. She testified that she disliked her stepfather and
that her mother was often mad.
Sgt. John Madjerick from SPD testified as an expert in fingerprint
examination and identification. He compared Eckles’s thumbprints taken in
court with the thumbprints on a fingerprint sheet attached to a bill of
information from DeSoto Parish charging Eckles in 2006 with carnal
knowledge of a juvenile. Madjerick determined that the thumbprints were
from the same person. The earlier crime occurred on October 14, 2005,
when Eckles would have been 19. Eckles pled guilty as charged in DeSoto
Parish, and he received a hard labor sentence of two years. The sentence
was suspended with a probation condition of two years.
Sherry Williams is S.L.’s maternal grandmother. She described S.L.
as being well cared for. She testified that there had been proceedings in
juvenile court concerning custody of Clay’s daughters, but not of S.L. She
testified that when S.L. lashed out in a rage and wondered how a father
could do that to his daughter, she asked S.L. if Eckles had done something to
her, and S.L. responded in the affirmative. Eckles’s mother had asked her if
she believed S.L., and she said yes.
Tara Eckles is Eckles’s mother. She testified that the victim in the
carnal knowledge case was 16 or 17 when Eckles’s son was born. They
were dating when she became pregnant. She was not aware that her son had
any alcohol or drug problems. She testified that in 2018 or 2019, Clay told
her to go to juvenile court because she was going to turn over custody of
S.L. to Eckles before the state took custody of S.L., but nothing came of it.
Jessica Eckles is defendant’s sister. She testified that she has not
personally seen her brother use drugs or alcohol. She thought there was an 6 age difference of six months to a year between her brother and the mother of
his son. She testified that she never gave her brother access to her apartment
without her being there.
Jermaine Williams has been friends with Eckles since third grade. He
testified that Eckles had been in a dating relationship with the victim in the
carnal knowledge case. Eckles lived with him and his six nieces, and then
later with him and his daughter. Williams testified that Eckles sometimes
babysat his daughter. He described Eckles as protective of children, and he
stated that he never witnessed Eckles act inappropriately around children.
Williams testified that Clay was very vindictive because she never got
over her romantic interest in Eckles. He also testified that Clay placed
conditions on Eckles to see S.L., such as giving her money.
Williams recalled when Clay dropped S.L. off at his house for Eckles
to see her. This was in April of 2022. He described Clay as being angry at
the time, and that S.L. had body odor and looked unkempt. He did not know
Clay as being very truthful.
Eckles testified on his own behalf. Until Easter Sunday in 2022, his
relationship with S.L. was limited to phone calls and text messages. He
explained that the victim in the carnal knowledge case was his girlfriend
who was a grade behind him in high school.
Eckles testified that Clay pulled up at his friend’s house that Easter
Sunday and left S.L. with him. Clay told him that she did not want custody
of S.L., but he knew that he could not have custody of her because of his
conviction. He testified that he went to court in January of 2022 when
Clay’s mother alleged neglect and was seeking custody of S.L.
7 Eckles testified that S.L. had an odor on Easter Sunday, so he gave
some money to his girlfriend and asked her to take S.L. to the store to get
some hygiene products. They also took S.L. to his sister for her to braid
S.L.’s hair.
Eckles testified that the second visit was around May 1. He and his
girlfriend picked S.L. up from school and brought her to their home in
Nacogdoches, Texas. S.L. spent the night with them before being returned
home the next day.
Eckles testified that Clay called him on Mother’s Day and asked him
to get S.L. since he was in Shreveport. He arrived at Clay’s house at around
6:45 p.m. He left the house at about 8:45. He testified that he told Clay that
he would return S.L. after going to a fair. He stated that his girlfriend, her
daughter, and his young son were with him.
Eckles testified that his date of birth is May 12, 1986. He
acknowledged that S.L. was in his care when she was with him during her
three visits.
Angelina Pablo was Eckles’s girlfriend in 2022. She testified that
S.L. acted like she wanted to be around Eckles and stated that she wanted to
live with him.
The jury found Eckles guilty as charged on both counts. Eckles filed
a motion for new trial and a motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal.
Both motions were denied.
Sentencing was held on February 19, 2025. Eckles, his mother, and
his sister testified briefly. The court asked Eckles about his work history
and family life.
8 Reviewing the La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 sentencing guidelines, the trial
court concluded: (1) there was an undue risk that during the period of a
suspended sentence or probation that Eckles would commit another crime;
(2) Eckles was in need of correctional treatment or a custodial environment
that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution;
and (3) a lesser sentence will deprecate the seriousness of Eckles’s crime.
Regarding aggravating factors, the court concluded: (1) Eckles’s conduct
during the commission of the offense manifested deliberate cruelty to the
victim; (2) Eckles used his position or status to facilitate the commission of
the offenses; and (3) the offenses resulted in a significant permanent injury
to the victim. The court found no mitigating factors.
Eckles was sentenced to 10 years at hard labor for his molestation of a
juvenile conviction. The court stated it was going to sentence him to 15
years at hard labor before it heard the statements from Eckles and his family
members. Eckles was sentenced to five years for his indecent behavior with
juveniles conviction. The sentences were to run consecutively. Any fines,
costs, and fees were waived.
DISCUSSION
Sufficiency of the evidence
The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence
claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v. Tate, 01-1658
(La. 5/20/03), 851 So. 2d 921, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S. Ct. 1604,
158 L. Ed. 2d 248 (2004). This standard, now legislatively embodied in La. 9 C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to
substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder.
State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So. 2d 517; State v. Dotie,
43,819 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/14/09), 1 So. 3d 833, writ denied, 09-0310 (La.
11/6/09), 21 So. 3d 297.
The trier of fact makes credibility determinations and may, within the
bounds of rationality, accept or reject the testimony of any witness. State v.
Casey, 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So. 2d 1022, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840,
121 S. Ct. 104, 148 L. Ed. 2d 62 (2000). The appellate court does not assess
credibility or reweigh the evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95),
661 So. 2d 442; State v. Green, 49,741 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/15/15), 164 So. 3d
331. A reviewing court accords great deference to a jury’s decision to
accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part. State v.
Jackson, 53,497 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/20), 296 So. 3d 1156.
The Jackson standard of review is applicable in cases involving both
direct and circumstantial evidence. An appellate court reviewing the
sufficiency of evidence in such cases must resolve any conflict in the direct
evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution. When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established
by the direct evidence and inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be
sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. State v. Sutton,
436 So. 2d 471 (La. 1983); State v. Hampton, 52,403 (La. App. 2 Cir.
11/14/18), 261 So. 3d 993, writ denied, 19-0287 (La. 4/29/19), 268 So. 3d
1029.
10 Direct evidence provides proof of the existence of a fact, for example,
a witness’s testimony that he saw or heard something. State v. Lilly, 468 So.
2d 1154 (La. 1985). Circumstantial evidence provides proof of collateral
facts and circumstances, from which the existence of the main fact may be
inferred according to reason and common experience. Id. When the state
relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential
element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends
to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable
hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Lilly, supra; State v.
Green, supra.
To convict an accused of molestation of a juvenile, the state must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant: (1) was over the age of
17 and more than two years older than the victim; (2) committed a lewd or
lascivious act upon the person or in the presence of any child under the age
of 17; (3) had the specific intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desires of
himself or the victim; and (4) committed the act by use of force, duress,
psychological intimidation or by the use of influence by virtue of a position
of control or supervision over the juvenile. La. R.S. 14:81.2; State v.
Hernandez, 55,256 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/9/23), 369 So. 3d 962.
La. R.S. 14:81 defines the crime of indecent behavior with juveniles.
It states in part:
A. Indecent behavior with juveniles is the commission of any of the following acts with the intention of arousing or gratifying the sexual desires of either person: (1) Any lewd or lascivious act upon the person or in the presence of any child under the age of seventeen, where there is an age difference of greater than two years between the two persons.
11 A lewd or lascivious act, for the purposes of molestation of a juvenile,
is one which tends to excite lust and to deprave morals with respect to sexual
relations and which is obscene, indecent, and related to sexual impurity or
incontinence carried on in a wanton manner. State v. Redfearn, 44,709 (La.
App. 2 Cir. 9/23/09), 22 So. 3d 1078, writ denied, 09-2206 (La. 4/9/10), 31
So. 3d 381.
Eckles argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to convict
him of either molestation or indecent behavior. More specifically, he
contends that Hughes failed to ask about other possible offenders. He
further contends that there was no medical or psychiatric evidence regarding
S.L’s competency despite her medical problems.
The evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Eckles was
guilty of molestation of a juvenile. The evidence showed that Eckles was
over 17 and that S.L. was 15 on the date of the offense. S.L. stated during
her Gingerbread House interview that Eckles rubbed his penis in front of
her, forced her to touch his penis, touched her breasts after lifting her shirt
and removing her bra, and touched her vaginal area. S.L. was under
Eckles’s control at the time, and clearly these were lewd and lascivious acts.
Eckles also clearly had the specific intent to arouse himself or gratify his
sexual desires when he took those actions.
The evidence also established beyond a reasonable doubt that Eckles
was guilty of indecent behavior with juveniles. Eckles committed a lewd
and lascivious act upon her person or in her presence with the intent to
arouse or gratify his sexual desires when he told S.L. to search for anime
pornography and had her watch it, when he sniffed her vagina after lowering
her pants and panties, and when he asked to sniff cocaine off her butt. 12 Trial counsel probed S.L’s competency while questioning witnesses.
During closing arguments, S.L.’s trial counsel told the jury that S.L. had
severe mental health issues and developmental deficiencies. Trial counsel
also argued to the jury that S.L. was a troubled young lady in a difficult
environment, and that troubled young people do not always tell the truth.
The jury was able to assess S.L.’s credibility and ability to understand
questions from both the Gingerbread House interview and from her
testimony in court.
In a footnote in his brief, appeal counsel asserts that this court should
consider whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel
since there was no challenge or objection to S.L.’s competency. We decline
to do so as we note that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are more
properly raised in an application for post-conviction relief in the trial court
because this provides the opportunity for a full evidentiary hearing under La.
C. Cr. P. art. 930. State v. Galloway, 54,704 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/1/23), 354
So. 3d 919, writ denied, 23-00366 (La. 5/31/23), 361 So. 3d 467.
Excessive sentence
Eckles next argues that his sentences are excessive because there was
no evidence of prior predatory conduct. He also argues that the maximum
sentence is excessive in this case.
When a defendant fails to timely file a motion to reconsider sentence,
the appellate court’s review of the sentence is limited to a bare claim of
constitutional excessiveness. State v. Mims, 619 So. 2d 1059 (La. 1993);
State v. Benson, 53,578 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/10/20), 305 So. 3d 135.
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 13 purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. Dorthey,
623 So. 2d 1276 (La. 1993); State v. Bell, 53,712 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/13/21),
310 So. 3d 307. 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 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.
Trotter, 54,496 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/29/22), 342 So. 3d 1116. 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.
Bell, supra.
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. Gibson, 54,400 (La. App. 2 Cir.
5/25/22), 338 So. 3d 1260, writ denied, 22-00978 (La. 3/7/23), 356 So. 3d
1053.
If a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses based on the same
act or transaction, or constituting 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. Concurrent sentences arising out of a single course of conduct are not
mandatory. State v. Heath, 53,559 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/10/20), 304 So. 3d
1105, writ denied, 20-01422 (La. 4/7/21), 313 So. 3d 981. Consecutive
sentences under those circumstances are not necessarily excessive. Id. It is 14 within the court’s discretion to make sentences consecutive rather than
concurrent. Id. Factors to be considered in imposing consecutive sentences
include the gravity and viciousness of the offense, the harm done to the
victims, the risk of danger to the public, the offender’s criminal history, and
his potential for rehabilitation. Id. 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. State v. Sandifer,
54,103 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/15/21), 330 So. 3d 1270.
La. R.S. 14:81.2(B)(2) stated at the time of the offenses that whoever
commits the crime of molestation of a juvenile, when the victim is thirteen
years of age or older but has not yet attained the age of seventeen, and when
the offender has control or supervision over the juvenile, shall be fined not
more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor,
for not less than five nor more than twenty years, or both. Eckles received a
midrange sentence of 10 years at hard labor. In fact, the court exhibited
leniency as it originally was going to sentence Eckles to 15 years at hard
labor.
La. R.S. 14:81(H)(1) states that whoever commits the crime of
indecent behavior with juveniles shall be fined not more than five thousand
dollars, or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than seven
years, or both. The 5-year sentence received by Eckles was below the
maximum sentence. Moreover, there was no imposition of a hard labor
condition.
Eckles quickly took advantage of his daughter’s vulnerabilities shortly
after their father-daughter relationship began. The sentences, considered
individually or collectively with the consecutive condition imposed, are not 15 a needless infliction of pain and suffering and do not shock the sense of
justice.
Error patent
According to the transcript from sentencing, the 5-year sentence for
the indecent behavior conviction was imposed without a hard labor
condition. However, the minutes reflect that it was imposed at hard labor.
When there is a discrepancy between the minutes and the transcript,
the transcript prevails. State v. Lynch, 441 So. 2d 732 (La. 1983).
Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court to correct the minutes
to remove the hard labor condition for the 5-year sentence for Eckles’s
indecent behavior conviction.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Eckles’s convictions and sentences are
affirmed. The matter is remanded to the trial court to correct the minutes to
reflect that the 5-year sentence for the indecent behavior with juveniles
conviction was imposed without a hard labor condition.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED; REMANDED.