State of Louisiana v. Raheem G. Knox

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: November 20, 2024
• Docket: 55,996-KA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered November 20, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,996-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

RAHEEM G. KNOX Appellant

Appealed from the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Bossier, Louisiana Trial Court No. 247,749

Honorable Michael O. Craig, Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Peggy J. Sullivan

J. SCHUYLER MARVIN Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

ANDREW C. JACOBS RICHARD R. RAY Assistant District Attorneys

Before COX, STEPHENS, and MARCOTTE, JJ. COX, J.

This criminal appeal arises from the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District

Court, Bossier Parish, Louisiana. Defendant, Raheem G. Knox (Knox), was

charged with identity theft, in violation of La. R.S. 14:67.16(B). Knox pled

guilty and was sentenced to four years at hard labor, with credit for time

served. For the following reasons, we affirm Knox’s conviction and

sentence.

FACTS

On July 10, 2023, the State filed a bill of information alleging that

Knox committed identity theft in violation of La. R.S. 14:67.16(B) from

October 5, 2022, to May 22, 2023. The bill of information provided, in

relevant part:

Raheem G. Knox, on or about May 23, 2023, did intentionally use or possess or transfer or attempt to use with fraudulent intent any personal identifying information of another person to obtain, possess, or transfer, whether contemporaneously or not, credit, money, goods, services, or anything else of value without the authorization or consent of the other person.

On July 13, 2023, Knox waived formal arraignment and pled not guilty to

identity theft.

On August 10, 2023, a bond reduction hearing was held, wherein the

trial court acknowledged that Knox was a first felony offender, had no

criminal history, and that the State made a previous offer for five years at

hard labor. Deputy Michael Basco (Deputy Basco), of the Financial Crimes

Task Force with the Bossier City Police Department, on behalf of the State,

testified that he investigated Knox’s case. Deputy Basco confirmed that the

victim, Heather Carter (Carter), had her phone stolen on October 5, 2022. He further confirmed that almost immediately after the phone was stolen,

cash advances of over $9,000 were made on Carter’s credit cards.

Deputy Basco testified that several search warrants were issued to

credit card companies to confirm Carter’s allegation that almost $10,000

worth of goods were charged to her. Deputy Basco then confirmed that he

received information from a woman who stated she helped the defendant

obtain credit cards in Carter’s name, and that the defendant committed this

offense from October 5, 2022, until May 22, 2023. Deputy Basco attested

that when Knox was arrested, he had credit cards and a credit statement in

Carter’s name in his possession.

Next, Knox testified that he was 29 years old, that his primary

residence was in Texas, where he had a job opportunity available, and that

he had no prior criminal convictions. Knox then admitted that he had been

arrested for outstanding ticket fines. At that time, the trial court denied the

request to reduce bond.

On November 9, 2023, Knox withdrew his previous plea and pled

guilty to the charge of identity theft in violation of La. R.S. 14: 67.16(B).

The trial court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) report to be

submitted before sentencing. The trial court confirmed that Knox was 29

years old and received his high school diploma. Knox then confirmed that

his counsel explained the minimum and maximum penalties for this offense

and that the sentence imposed was left to the discretion of the court. At this

time the State read the following facts into the record:

On or about May 23rd of 2023, this defendant, Raheem (pronounced differently) G. Knox, did commit the offense of Identity Theft and he did so by intentionally using or possessing or transferring or attempting to use with fraudulent intent any personal identifying information of another person to obtain, 2 possess, or transfer, whether contemporaneously or not, credit, money, goods, services, or anything else of value, without the authorization or consent of the other person who is the subject of the identity theft. This identity theft did occur by Mr. Knox taking an iPhone belonging to the victim and using it to transfer funds to various places. This did occur within the confines of Bossier Parish, Louisiana and in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 14:67.16, Subsection B.

Following this, Knox pled guilty, and sentencing was scheduled for January

8, 2024.

During sentencing, Carter informed the trial court that she received a

letter from Knox and requested that a restraining order be issued. Carter

then expressed how Knox’s actions made her life difficult for seven months

and ruined her credit. The trial court stated that it reviewed the impact

statement Carter submitted to the officers prior to sentencing and that it also

reviewed the PSI alongside the art. 894.1 factors. The trial court also

explained that the offense of identity theft carries up to 10 years at hard

labor. In detailing the facts of this case, the trial court summarized that

following the theft of Carter’s phone, Knox used the information from

Carter’s iCloud to create credit card accounts using Carter’s personal

information and provided this information to other people.

The trial court highlighted that the financial loss and effects that

flowed from Knox’s actions, namely that Carter’s credit rating and school

accounts were negatively impacted, was not the only measurable loss Carter

faced. The trial court noted that Carter had to go through the process of

canceling and then recreating information that she accumulated over a

significant period of time. The trial court then reviewed Knox’s personal

history, noting that Knox is 29 years old, that he had a previous possession

with intent to distribute a Schedule I controlled dangerous substance that

3 was reduced to a misdemeanor, and that this is Knox’s first felony

conviction. The trial court further acknowledged that Knox used the

information he obtained from Carter’s phone to send a letter to Carter while

incarcerated, which “extended [Carter] being victimized even more.”

After expressing that a lesser sentence would deprecate the

seriousness of the offense and “the damage [Knox’s] actions caused to

[Carter] and her family,” the trial court sentenced Knox to four years at hard

labor. The trial court further imposed that Knox was to have no contact with

Carter either directly or via a family member. At that time, counsel for

Knox objected to the sentence. Defense counsel filed a motion to reconsider

sentence on January 25, 2024, and the motion was denied on January 29,

2024. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Knox presents one assignment of error—that his four-year

sentence at hard labor was unconstitutionally harsh and excessive because he

is a first-time felony offender with no prior convictions. However, Knox

argues that an error patent is embodied in the deficiencies contained in the

bill of information. Specifically, Knox argues that the bill of information

failed to designate the grade of the offense charged or allege the value, price,

or amount of damage incurred; therefore, his conviction should be set aside.

In accordance with La. C. Cr. P. art. 470, the value, price, or amount

of damage need not be alleged in the indictment, unless such allegation is

essential to the charge or to determine the grade of the offense. The penalty

for identity theft depends upon whether the amount of damage amounts to

“one thousand dollars or more,” “five hundred dollars or more, but less than

one thousand dollars,” “three hundred dollars or more, but less than five 4 hundred dollars,” or “less than three hundred dollars.” See, La. R.S.

14:67.16(C). Therefore, the amount of damage is essential to determine the

grade of the offense for identity theft.

Generally, under art. 470, the failure of the State to allege any amount

of damages in the bill of information renders the bill defective. While art.

470 does not require that an indictment include a specific monetary value,

the allegations in the indictment must be sufficient to determine the grade of

the offense. However, a judgment or ruling shall not be reversed on appeal

because of any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect

substantial rights of the accused. La. C. Cr. P. art. 921; State v. Fuller,

48,663 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/11/23), 130 So. 3d 960.

Knox relies on State v. Ledbetter, 54,050 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/22/21),

326 So. 3d 976, in which this Court reversed a defendant’s conviction for

residential contractor fraud because the bill of information failed to state any

specific value regarding the misappropriated or taken funds. This Court

determined that under La. R.S. 14:202.1, residential contractor fraud is a

graded offense and penalties for the offense are determined, in part, on the

total amount that was misappropriated. This Court further determined that

any “[d]iscussion during trial of values generally, and even the jury

returning a verdict finding [the defendant] was guilty. . . in a specific

amount, does not remedy the defect.”

In contrast, the First Circuit in State v. Guidry, 93-1091 (La. App. 1

Cir. 4/8/94), 635 So. 2d 731, found that the failure to allege the value of the

property damaged in a bill of information where the offense charged was

simple arson, an offense wherein the penalty imposed is determined by the

total amount of damage incurred, La. R.S. 14:52, did not require reversal of 5 the defendant’s conviction. The First Circuit concluded that the failure to

include the amount of damage was harmless error as the defendant was

advised of the possible penalty and used the appropriate penalty provision

for the grade of arson for which he was convicted. Moreover, the court

determined that the sentence imposed was appropriate for either grade of the

offense possible, so the defendant did not suffer any prejudice as a result.

Similarly, the bill of information in this case failed to include the

specific amount of funds that Knox transferred from the victim’s accounts.

Specifically, the bill of information provided:

Raheem G. Knox, on or about May 23, 2023, did intentionally use or possess or transfer or attempt to use with fraudulent intent any personal identifying information of another person to obtain, possess, or transfer, whether contemporaneously or not, credit, money, goods, services, or anything else of value without the authorization or consent of the other person.

However, during the bond hearing, Knox heard Deputy Basco’s testimony

that approximately $9,000 in cash advances were made on Carter’s credit

cards, so Knox was aware of the amount of damages alleged against him.

Further, during Knox’s guilty plea, Knox admitted that his defense counsel

explained both the minimum and maximum penalties associated with the

offense and acknowledged that sentencing would be left to the trial court’s

discretion. Importantly, during sentencing, the trial court stated the possible

sentencing range was up to ten years and used the penalty provision for the

grade of identity theft where the damages amounts to a “value of one

thousand dollars or more.” See, La. R.S. 14:67.16.

Given these facts, we cannot say that Knox’s substantial rights were

affected by the failure to specify the amount of damage. Accordingly, we

find that any error was harmless and decline to vacate his sentence on these

6 grounds. However, in the future, best practice is to always include the

amount of damages alleged in the bill of information and during the

recitation of facts during the plea hearing.

Knox further argues that his four-year sentence at hard labor was

unconstitutionally harsh and excessive and disproportionately tailored to him

as a first-time felony offender. Knox acknowledges that he received a

midrange sentence, but maintains that given the facts of this case, he should

have been given the “opportunity for probation,” and “afforded the chance to

show his ability to move forward as a productive citizen.” Moreover, Knox

highlights that he contacted Carter to apologize for the harm he caused her

through his actions.

The law concerning excessive sentences is well-settled; claims are

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. Vanhorn, 52,583 (La. App. 2 Cir.

4/10/19), 268 So. 3d 357, writ denied, 19-00745 (La. 11/19/19), 282 So. 3d

1065. A review of the sentencing guidelines does not require a listing of

every aggravating or mitigating circumstance. Id.

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. McKeever,

55,260 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/23), 371 So. 3d 1156. To constitute an

excessive sentence, a reviewing court must find that the penalty is so grossly

disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock the sense of justice

or that the sentence makes no reasonable contribution to acceptable penal

goals and, therefore, is nothing more than the needless imposition of pain 7 and suffering. State v. Griffin, 14-1214 (La. 10/14/15), 180 So. 3d 1262;

State v. Efferson, 52,306 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/14/18), 259 So. 3d 1153, writ

denied, 18-2052 (La. 4/15/19), 267 So. 3d 1131.

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.

Griffin, supra; 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. McKeever, supra.

Here, the trial court fully considered the sentencing factors set forth

under art. 894.1 and considered Knox’s personal history and reviewed his

PSI. The trial court, however, determined that Knox’s actions of stealing

Carter’s phone and then using that information to create accounts in his

name directly resulted in a detrimental impact on Carter’s credit rating and

caused her and her husband financial loss. Given the impact that Knox’s

actions had on Carter and the seriousness of the offense, the trial court

determined that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of Knox’s

actions. Moreover, Knox’s sentence not only falls within the statutory range

for this offense, but this Court notes that his sentence falls far below the ten

year maximum possible penalty for identity theft under La. R.S. 14:67.16.

Therefore, Knox’s sentence is neither grossly out of proportion to the

severity of the offense nor does it shock the sense of justice. Accordingly,

this Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

this sentence and this assignment of error is without merit.

8 CONCLUSION

For the reasons assigned herein, Knox’s conviction and sentence are

affirmed.