State of Louisiana v. Michaela R. Carroll

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: November 15, 2023
• Docket: 55,215-KA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered November 15, 2023. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,215-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

MICHAELA R. CARROLL Appellant

Appealed from the Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Franklin, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2020-F-252

Honorable Stephen G. Dean, Judge

HOGAN ATTORNEYS Counsel for Appellant By: Jane Hogan

PENNY WISE-DOUCIERE Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

AMANDA M. WILKINS CAROLINE HEMPHILL Assistant District Attorneys

Before PITMAN, THOMPSON, and MARCOTTE, JJ. PITMAN, C. J.

Defendant Michaela R. Carroll pled guilty to two counts of

molestation of a juvenile with an agreed upon sentencing range of 25 to

50 years. She appeals the sentences imposed of 50 years per count, to be

served concurrently, with the first 25 years being served without benefit of

probation, parole or suspension of sentence. For the following reasons, we

affirm.

FACTS

On June 5, 2020, Defendant and her husband were charged with seven

violations of the law, including two counts of first degree rape of a victim

under the age of 13, three counts of pornography involving juveniles, and

two counts of molestation of a juvenile. The victim of three of these crimes,

including the two counts of first degree rape of a victim under the age of 13,

was J.C., d.o.b. 2/19/09. The victims of the other four crimes were A.M.

(d.o.b. 3/1/17) and W.M. (d.o.b. 3/1/18).

In addition to the counts above, Defendant was charged individually

with three counts of first degree rape of a victim under the age of 13. The

victim of these crimes was D.C. (d.o.b. 1/16/07).

Pursuant to a plea agreement, on April 11, 2022, in open court, two

counts of first degree rape were amended to molestation of a juvenile under

the age of 13, violations of La. R.S. 14:81.2. The state dismissed the

remaining eight counts against this defendant. The plea agreement in the

record shows that the state and Defendant agreed that there would be a cap

of 50 years on the sentences for each of these counts; the sentencing range

would be 25 to 50 years; they would run concurrently; she would be given credit for time served; a presentencing investigation (“PSI”) would be

conducted; and she would have a lifetime registration as a sex offender.

At the hearing, during which Defendant pled guilty, the state recited

the factual basis for the two charges of molestation of a juvenile as follows:

[O]n or about January 1st, 2019 and through May 31st, 2019, Michaela Carroll did commit molestation of a juvenile under the age of thirteen with the initials “JC.” And his date of birth is February 19th, 2009. On count ten, Michaela Carroll on or about August 1st, 2019, through August 31st, 2019, did commit molestation of a juvenile under the age of thirteen “DC” date of birth January 16th, 2007. The sex act was oral.

At that hearing the trial judge disclosed for the record, that by chance,

he had seen JC’s and DC’s mother at an Auto Zone in Winnsboro and asked

her if she was aware that the guilty plea would be taken that particular day.

She affirmed that she was aware of the date and told him that she wanted to

get the matter behind her.

At the hearing, the trial court advised Defendant of all her rights she

was waiving by pleading guilty. She was asked if she was satisfied with the

representation she had received from her attorney and she affirmed that she

was. After Defendant was informed of her rights and appeared competent,

the trial court accepted her guilty plea and noted that a PSI would be

initiated prior to sentencing.

At sentencing on July 7, 2022, the trial court allowed Defendant’s

stepfather and mother to speak on her behalf. Both stated that Defendant

was the victim of a very abusive relationship with her husband who

threatened her with violence if she did not comply with his wishes for her to

commit these crimes while he watched, filmed or participated. Defendant’s

mother brought up the fact that had sentencing been delayed, a forensic

psychologist, Dr. Chitra Raghaven, would have been able to testify that her 2 daughter was controlled by her husband who had threatened her life and that

of her family if she did not comply with his wishes. She testified that he

terrorized Defendant and that she did not engage in the acts for her own

gratification but, instead, because she was in fear and just trying to survive

every day “after being beaten down to nothing.” She stated that Defendant

only accepted the plea agreement because she knew she was facing a

possible life sentence for the crimes she committed, and she did not want to

have to relive her nightmare experiences or put the victims through the

same.

The trial court noted that the sentencing range for molestation of a

juvenile under the age of 13 years is imprisonment at hard labor for not less

than 25 years and not more than 99 years, with not less than 25 years being

served without benefits. The trial court stated that it carefully considered and

studied the PSI and all factors, both aggravating and mitigating, as well as

the nature of the offenses involved in light of the provisions of La. C. Cr. P.

art. 894.1. It found aggravating factors in that there was an undue risk that

Defendant would commit another crime during the period of any suspended

sentence, that she was in need of correctional treatment or custodial

environment that could be most effective by her commitment to an

institution and that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the

crimes. It found no mitigating factors and stated that the crimes were very

serious ones that involved children—a teenager, a preteen and two very

young children. It noted that the state dismissed the charges concerning the

two- and three-year-old in the plea agreement. It stated that the threats,

intimidation and abuse alleged by Defendant to have occurred against her

“pale in comparison to that suffered by the victims.” It further stated that 3 Defendant’s acts were sordid, hideous and despicable. As to the prayers for

leniency, it stated that she already had been shown great leniency by the

state’s dismissal of most of the counts against her and by holding her

responsible for only two of the ten original counts, and those had also been

reduced from first degree rape of a victim under the age of 13 to molestation

of a victim under the age of 13.

The trial court imposed sentences of 50 years for each count, the first

25 years of which would be served without benefits. All of the other

conditions of the plea agreement were also imposed.

Defendant appeals her sentences.

DISCUSSION

Excessiveness of Sentences

Defendant argues the trial court’s imposition of sentences of 50 years

for each count to which she pled guilty was unconstitutionally excessive

because it failed to consider the mitigating factor that she was a survivor of

intimate-partner violence and that her spouse forced her to commit the acts.

Further, Defendant argues that the trial court refused to adequately consider

objective sentencing factors of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and that a

comparative analysis of other sentences imposed for much more serious

crimes proves that Defendant’s sentences shock the sense of justice.

Defendant argues that the trial court refused to consider as a

mitigating factor the documented violence to which she had been subjected

by her former husband. She included a copy of Dr. Raghaven’s report with

her PSI to the trial court, as well as Dr. Raghaven’s Curriculum Vitae

documenting her renown in the field of intimate-partner violence. She prays

that this court consider Dr. Raghaven’s report and at least reduce the 4 sentences to 25 years each to be served concurrently and without benefits,

i.e., the minimum allowed by La. R.S. 14:82(D)(1).

The state replied that Defendant is barred from appealing her sentence

because it was imposed in conformity with a plea agreement that set a cap at

50 years per count, and this agreement was set forth in the record at the time

of the plea. The state argues that the sentences imposed for both counts

were well within the sentencing range for the crimes committed, even if

there had not been an agreement to cap the range at 50 years. Without the

plea agreement, Defendant faced the potential of two 99-year consecutive

sentences for the two crimes to which she pled guilty. Further, the state

responds to Defendant’s claim that the trial court failed to address mitigating

factors by pointing out that the trial court is not required to give reasons for

its decision to impose 50-year sentences for each crime; however, it did

provide reasons for imposing the maximum sentences under the plea

agreement, declaring it found the crimes so revolting and such a threat to the

children that the maximum sentences under the agreement were warranted.

For these reasons, the state argues that the sentences imposed cannot be

considered unconstitutionally excessive.

A defendant cannot appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in

conformity with a plea agreement which was set forth in the record at the

time of the plea. La. C. Cr. P. art. 881.2(A)(2); State v. McDonald, 54,838

(La. App. 2 Cir. 1/11/23), 354 So. 3d 820. This provision applies to both

agreed-upon sentences and sentencing ceilings, ranges and caps. Id., citing

State v. Young, 96-0195 (La. 10/15/96), 680 So. 2d 1171. If a plea

agreement did not include an agreed-upon sentence, it is subject to appellate

review. State v. Lindsey, 50,324 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/24/16), 189 So. 3d 1104. 5 This plea agreement stated that the sentencing range would be 25 to

50 years per count of molestation of a juvenile under the age of 13.

Defendant was informed that she was pleading guilty and that these were the

terms of her agreement. She voluntarily accepted the agreement and waived

her right to appeal the sentences. Her argument that the sentences imposed

were unconstitutionally excessive has no merit. To the contrary, the

duration of the sentences imposed pursuant to the plea agreement had

already been greatly reduced from a possible statutory 99-year sentence per

count to a cap of 50 years and an agreement that the sentences would be

served concurrently rather than consecutively. Given the severity of the

crimes, and the fact that the state had already chosen not to prosecute eight

other crimes, we find Defendant’s assignment of error to be wholly without

merit.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Defendant alleges that she received ineffective assistance of counsel

based on three separate arguments, i.e. the attorney failed to call an expert

on intimate-partner violence at the sentencing hearing, the attorney failed to

advocate for a lesser sentence or downward departure and the attorney failed

to object to, or investigate, the trial judge’s statement that he had

encountered the mother of the victims at a store in town and reminded her of

the date of the hearing.

Defendant argues that her attorney’s failure to ask for a continuance

of the sentencing hearing so that Dr. Raghaven could appear and testify

regarding her state of mind and diminished culpability as a result of being a

victim of intimate-partner violence was proof of ineffective assistance of

counsel. She asserts that the testimony of the psychologist is necessary so 6 that courts can understand the impact violence has on women, particularly

when “Battered Woman’s Syndrome” is a mitigating factor. She claims that

instead of using it as a mitigating factor, the trial court used her victimhood

as an aggravating factor and opined that she could have left the situation.

For these reasons, she contends that the sentences should be vacated and the

matter remanded for a new sentencing hearing so the expert can testify

regarding the psychological impacts of an abusive relationship.

Defendant’s second basis for the alleged ineffective assistance of

counsel claim is that the attorney did not advocate for the imposition of the

most minimal sentences available under the law. She claims that because of

this failure, a victim of domestic violence was sentenced to “the maximum

penalty available under the plea bargain agreement.” She argues that her

attorney failed to perform according to the standard noted in the

jurisprudence that requires sentencing counsel to present all mitigation and

all relevant legal arguments to the trial court and to request a downward

departure if appropriate.

Defendant also argues her attorney provided ineffective assistance of

counsel in failing to question the trial court about its ex parte communication

with JC’s and DC’s mother in the parking lot of Auto Zone and to suggest

the need for the trial court to recuse itself as being partial. Defendant asserts

that the trial court instigated the conversation by asking her what her

position was in advance of the guilty plea, and the mother indicated that she

would like for the maximum penalty to be imposed. Defendant contends

that whether grounds for recusal existed is unknown because her attorney

failed to question the trier of fact about the communication with the victims’

mother. 7 In response, the state argues that Defendant failed to support her claim

that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. It argues that Defendant

has not shown prejudice or any effect on the outcome of her sentences

resulting from her counsel’s performance.

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is generally not urged on

appeal. It is usually raised in the trial court through the means of an

application for post-conviction relief. However, when the record is

sufficient, an appellate court may resolve this issue on direct appeal in the

interest of judicial economy. State v. Cooley, 51,895 (La. App. 2 Cir.

5/23/18), 247 So. 3d 1159, writ denied, 18-1160 (La. 3/6/19), 266 So. 3d

899.

The right of a defendant in a criminal proceeding to the effective

assistance of counsel is mandated by U.S. Constitutional Amendment VI.

Under the standard set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.

Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), and adopted by the Louisiana Supreme

Court in State v. Washington, 491 So. 2d 1337 (La. 1986), a conviction must

be reversed if the petitioner proves (1) that counsel’s performance fell below

an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms,

and (2) counsel’s inadequate performance prejudiced the defendant to the

extent that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict suspect. State v.

Cooley, supra.

A deficient performance is established by showing that the attorney’s

actions fell below the standard of reasonableness and competency required

for attorneys in criminal cases and is evaluated from the attorney’s

perspective at the time of the occurrence. Strickland v. Washington, supra.

A reviewing court must give great deference to the trial counsel’s judgment, 8 tactical decisions and trial strategy, strongly presuming he has exercised

reasonable professional judgment. State v. Nixon, 51,319 (La. App. 2 Cir.

5/19/17), 222 So. 3d 123, writ denied, 17-0966 (La. 4/27/18), 239 So. 3d

836. A defendant making a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must

identify certain acts or omissions by counsel which led to the claim; general

statements and conclusory charges will not suffice. Strickland v.

Washington, supra; State v. Nixon, supra.

A defendant must show that this deficient performance prejudiced his

defense. This element requires a showing the errors were so serious that the

defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Strickland, supra. A defendant must

prove actual prejudice before relief will be granted. State v. Pratt, 26,862

(La. App. 2 Cir. 4/5/95), 653 So. 2d 174, writ denied, 95-1398 (La. 11/3/95),

662 So. 2d 9. It is not sufficient for the defendant to show that the error had

some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding. Rather, he must

show that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable

probability the outcome of the trial would have been different. Id.

The record in this case is sufficient for this court to resolve the issue

of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. Defendant fails to

establish how her counsel’s alleged deficient performance at her sentencing

hearing, and afterward, prejudiced her or resulted in the imposition of a

harsher sentence. Defendant faced multiple counts of first degree rape of

victims under the age of 13, each of which could have resulted in life

imprisonment; and her attorney negotiated a plea agreement that dismissed

eight of the ten counts against her, reduced the first degree rape charges to

molestation of a victim under the age of 13, and capped her possible

imprisonment at only 50 years, to be served concurrently instead of 9 consecutively. The benefits received by Defendant as a result of her

attorney’s negotiations cannot be denied, and her alleged failure to request a

continuance of the sentencing hearing so that the psychologist could testify

in person did not result in deficient performance.

Further, the claim that the trial attorney did not request a downward

departure from the sentences that could have been imposed lacks merit. In

fact, the attorney negotiated a plea agreement that greatly reduced

Defendant’s exposure to imprisonment for life without parole. The fact that

the ceiling for her imprisonment was capped at 50 years per charge instead

of 99 years per charge makes this argument invalid.

Finally, the argument that the attorney failed to seek recusal of the

trial court because there was an ex parte communication with the victims’

mother at an Auto Zone, which the trial court disclosed for the record, did

not result in any harm being done to Defendant. Defendant pled guilty with

a negotiated capped sentencing range, and any argument that she had

ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences imposed

against Michaela R. Carroll are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.