STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
07-1207
VERSUS
RANDALL J. MORAIN
********** APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 274,397 HONORABLE JOHN C. DAVIDSON, DISTRICT JUDGE **********
GLENN B. GREMILLION JUDGE
**********
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Oswald A. Decuir, and Glenn B. Gremillion, Judges.
SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED.
James C. Downs District Attorney - 9th JDC Michael W. Shannon, Asst. District Attorney P. O. Drawer 1472 Alexandria, LA 71309 (318) 473-6650 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee: State of Louisiana
Mark O. Foster P. O. Box 2057 Natchitoches, LA 71457 (318) 572-5693 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Randall J. Morain GREMILLION, Judge.
In this case, the defendant, Randall J. Morain, entered a plea of guilty to
the offenses of vehicular homicide, in violation of La.R.S. 14:32.1(A)(1) and (2), and
first degree vehicular negligent injuring, in violation of La.R.S. 14:39.2(A)(1) and
(2). Thereafter, he was sentenced to twenty-five years for the vehicular homicide
offense, the first eight years to be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or
suspension of sentence, and five years for the vehicular negligent injury offense, the
sentences to run concurrently. Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the vehicular
homicide sentence and was subsequently resentenced to twenty years, with the first
eight years to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of
sentence. Defendant then appealed the sentence to this court. We held that his
sentence was indeterminate and illegally lenient and remanded the matter to the trial
court. State v. Morain, 06-710 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/06), 941 So.2d 720. On remand,
the trial court sentenced Defendant on the vehicular homicide charge to twenty years
at hard labor, the first eight years to be served without benefit of probation, parole,
or suspension of sentence, imposed a fine of $2,000, and ordered him to participate
in a court-approved substance abuse program and a court-approved driver
improvement program.
Defendant is now before this court on appeal and alleges that the trial
court failed to comply with La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1(C) in sentencing him and that
the maximum sentence imposed by the trial court was cruel, unusual, and excessive,
in violation of Article I, § 20 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974. For the
1 following reasons, we vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for
resentencing.
FACTS
The following recitation of facts were taken from Morain, 941 So.2d at
721:
On May 17, 2004, seventeen-year-old Evan Ammons had a flat tire on Interstate 49 while on his way to work. He called his stepfather, Alberto Hinojosa, and his mother for assistance with changing the tire. Mr. Hinojosa, his wife, and their two children arrived, and Mr. Hinojosa parked their van in front of Evan’s vehicle on the shoulder of the interstate. As Mr. Hinojosa was assisting Evan with changing the tire, the Defendant’s vehicle veered onto the shoulder and struck them. Evan died at the scene of the accident, and Mr. Hinojosa sustained serious injuries. The Defendant’s blood was tested after the accident, and the blood alcohol content was measured at 0.10g percent.1
LOUISIANA CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 894.1
Defendant alleges that the trial court erred by not considering the
sentencing requirements of Article 894.1(C), which states: “The court shall state for
the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor in
imposing sentence.” The court, in State v. Thomas, 434 So.2d 530, 536 (La.App 2
Cir. 1983), discussed the requirements of stating a factual basis in accordance with
Article 894.1(C):
Under La.C.Cr.P. Art. 894.1, the trial court must state considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor in imposing sentence. While the judge need not articulate every aggravating and mitigating circumstance, the record must adequately reflect that he considered these guidelines in particularizing the sentence of the defendant. State v. Keeney, 422 So.2d 1144 (La.1982). In defendant James Thomas’
1 The Defendant pled guilty and there was no recitation of facts at the guilty plea proceeding. Thus, the facts have been taken from the briefs and the crime lab report. The “Results and Conclusions” section of the report indicates the blood alcohol concentration was .10g%, while the results indicate it was .109%.
2 sentencing proceeding, the trial court recited examples of actions by the defendant that indicated to him that the defendant had a habit of this type of criminal activity, and that defendant’s conduct was the result of circumstances very likely to recur. The court also discussed factors unfavorable to defendant being suitable for probation. Although the trial court did not go through all of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it did take into consideration this was defendant’s first offense and that defendant did have dependents who depended on him for aide in their support. The record therefore adequately reflects consideration of the guidelines of Art. 894.1 in particularizing the sentence to defendant James Thomas.
See also State v. Henney, 94-615, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/7/94), 647 So.2d 568, 569
(alteration in original), wherein this court stated, “[a] sentencing judge must always
consider the Guidelines and state for the record the considerations he has taken into
account and the factual basis for the sentence he has imposed.”
In the instant case, during Defendant’s resentencing, the trial court stated
the following:
On 17 May 2004, seventeen-year-old Evan Aymonds had a flat tire on Interstate 49 while on his way to work. He called his Stepfather and his Mother for assistance in changing the tire. His Stepfather, his Mother, and their two children arrived on the scene. [T]he Stepfather parked the van in front of Evan’s vehicle on the shoulder of the Interstate and began assisting Evan in changing the tire. Suddenly the vehicle driven by Randall Morain veered onto the shoulder, struck them, and Evan died at the scene. The stepfather suffered serious injury. Everything that occurred happened in the presence of Evan’s family. Mr. Morain’s blood was tested after the accident and the blood alcohol content was over the legal limit. Considering the factors set forth in Article 894.1 I’ve considered the mitigating effect of prior military service; ten and a half years as a police officer with the Baton Rouge City Police, both, both as a uniform police officer, then as a detective in homicide; I’ve also considered that, ah, he worked at various other security positions and other law enforcement capacities. In addition, I’ve considered the additional mitigating factors of posttraumatic stress disorder, severe depression, continuing substance abuse problems and various health problems that have been suffered. As part of this analysis I’ve also had to consider the aggravating factors. Mr. Morain continued to drive in the fact of a known alcohol problem. Almost an entire family was present when Evan was killed. Single handedly Mr. Morain destroyed
3 a family and a circle of friends, and his own family. There are terrible consequences when you choose to drink and drive. Based upon his life experiences he had to know the consequences of his decision to drink and drive.
While it is clear that the trial court did not consider all of the circumstances during
the resentencing proceedings, it did provide a factual basis for the sentence and
considered both mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Accordingly, we find that
this assignment of error is without merit.
EXCESSIVE SENTENCE
In this second assignment of error, Defendant alleges that his sentence
is cruel and unusual. Initially, we note that the twenty-year sentence was the
maximum at the time of the offense.2 As Defendant’s only allegation is that his
sentence is excessive, we can only evaluate his claim as a bare claim of
excessiveness. Additionally, we note that in this assignment of error, Defendant
attacks only his sentence for vehicular homicide.
We have set forth the following standard to be used in reviewing
excessive sentence claims:
La. Const. art. I, § 20 guarantees that, “[n]o law shall subject any person to cruel or unusual punishment.” To constitute an excessive sentence, the reviewing court must find the penalty so grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock our sense of justice or that the sentence makes no measurable contribution to acceptable penal goals and is, therefore, nothing more than a needless imposition of pain and suffering. State v. Campbell, 404 So.2d 1205 (La.1981). The trial court has wide discretion in the imposition of sentence within the statutory limits and such sentence shall not be set aside as excessive absent a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Etienne, 99-192 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99); 746 So.2d 124, writ denied, 00-0165 (La.6/30/00); 765 So.2d 1067. The relevant question is
2 La.R.S 14.32.1(B) was amended by 2004 La. Acts, No. 381, § 1, No. 750, § 1, which changed the maximum term of imprisonment from twenty to thirty years.
4 whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate. State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La.5/31/96); 674 So.2d 957, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043, 117 S.Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996).
State v. Barling, 00-1241, 00-1591, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035,
1042-43, writ denied, 01-0838 (La. 2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 (alteration in original).
In order to decide whether a sentence shocks the sense of justice or
makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals, we have held that:
[A]n appellate court may consider several factors including the nature of the offense, the circumstances of the offender, the legislative purpose behind the punishment and a comparison of the sentences imposed for similar crimes. State v. Smith, 99-0606 (La.7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501. While a comparison of sentences imposed for similar crimes may provide some insight, “it is well settled that sentences must be individualized to the particular offender and to the particular offense committed.” State v. Batiste, 594 So.2d 1 (La.App. 1 Cir.1991). Additionally, it is within the purview of the trial court to particularize the sentence because the trial judge “remains in the best position to assess the aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented by each case.” State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La.5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957, 958.
State v. Smith, 02-719, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/03), 846 So.2d 786, 789, writ denied,
03-0562 (La. 5/30/03), 845 So.2d 1061.
In State v. Whatley, 06-316 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/06), 943 So.2d 601, writ
denied, 06-2826 (La. 8/31/07), 962 So.2d 424, we discussed the factors that a
reviewing court should consider in determining if a trial court abused its discretion
in imposing a sentence. In Whatley, citing State v. Lisotta, 98-648 (La.App. 5 Cir.
12/16/98), 726 So.2d 57, writ denied, 99-0433 (La. 6/25/99), 745 So.2d 1183, we
annunciated three factors that a reviewing court should take into consideration in
abuse of discretion cases: (1) the nature of the crime; (2) the nature and background
5 of the offender; and (3) the sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and
other courts.
In following the guidelines of Lisotta, the nature of the offense in the
instant matter is vehicular homicide, a violation of La.R.S. 14:32.1, which now
carries a maximum sentence of thirty years at hard labor, but as we have stated, the
maximum sentence was only twenty years at the time of the offense. Unquestionably,
the legislature intended to convey the serious nature of the offense by the severity of
the punishment at the time of the offense and by substantially increasing the
punishment only months after the crime occurred in this case. Certainly, this is a
serious crime as was so articulately explained by the trial court in its sentencing of
Defendant. Death and serious injury was visited upon a family in their full view.
There is no measure of punishment to this defendant that can erase this crime, ease
their pain, or comfort this family.
Our review of the second prong of the Lisotta guidelines reflects that
Defendant had no criminal history, raised two daughters as a single parent, and served
a tour of duty in Vietnam as a member of the armed forces. He had no prior DWI
charges or offenses, was employed as a police officer in Baton Rouge for ten-and-a-
half years, suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, severe depression, various
health problems, and has a drinking problem. His blood alcoholic content was
marginally over the legal limit. Furthermore, Defendant accepted accountability for
his conduct and showed great remorse for the consequences of his misconduct.
Clearly, Defendant is not the worst type of offender for whom the maximum sentences
are reserved.
6 Finally, we will address the third Lisotta factor by reviewing the
sentences imposed for similar crimes by our trial courts. It is apparent that a reviewing
court should consider sentences imposed by other courts to provide consistency in the
punishment for similar crimes for similarly situated offenders. Before addressing
other opinions, we are reminded of a seminal sentencing precept: “[m]aximum
sentences are reserved for the most serious violations and the worst offenders.” State
v. Farhood, 02-490, p. 11 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/25/03), 844 So.2d 217, 225.
The State takes the position that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
when imposing the maximum sentence and cites two cases in support of their position:
State v. Crenshaw, 39,586 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/6/05), 899 So.2d 751, writ denied, 05-
1531 (La. 1/27/06), 922 So.2d 544, and State v. Cullipher, 02-390 (La.App. 3 Cir.
10/2/02), 827 So.2d 589. In Crenshaw, our colleagues in the second circuit held that
two maximum sentences of twenty years and five years for vehicular negligent
injuring, to be served consecutively, were not excessive where the defendant was
convicted of two counts of vehicular homicide. The defendant in Crenshaw, while
driving intoxicated, killed two persons and injured another, caused a large amount of
economic loss, had a blood alcohol content almost three times the legal limit, showed
a lack of remorse after the accident, was driving at speeds of eighty miles per hour on
city streets, and had three prior DWI convictions.
In Cullipher, we held that a fifteen-year-sentence with five years
suspended (twenty years was the maximum sentence at the time of the offense) for
vehicular homicide was not excessive. Cullipher had a blood alcohol content almost
twice the legal limit and had a previous DWI conviction. Furthermore, on the day in
7 question, Cullipher began drinking at 3:30 in the afternoon and continued to do so into
the evening when he went to a local bar and drank to the point of becoming ill. His
wife attempted to bring him home, but he refused her offer.
Clearly, Crenshaw and Cullipher are distinguishable from the case at bar.
Both of the defendants in those cases were much more serious offenders than
Defendant herein. In the instant matter, Defendant’s blood alcohol content was just
slightly over the legal limit, he showed remorse for the consequences of his conduct,
had no prior DWI convictions, and had not been involved in any other criminal
activity. Furthermore, in Cullipher, even in light of his past conduct and the gravity
of the vehicular homicide offense, he did not receive the maximum sentence of twenty
years.
One of the cases cited by Defendant in support of his proposition that his
sentence is excessive is State v. Blackmon, 99-391 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/3/99), 748 So.2d
50, writ denied, 99-3328 (La. 4/28/00), 760 So.2d 1174, where this court held that a
fifteen-year-sentence (the maximum sentence at the time of the offense in that case)
for vehicular homicide was not excessive based on the facts of the case. In Blackmon,
the defendant had a blood alcohol content twice the legal limit at the time of the
offense and was involved in two separate accidents while intoxicated, one accident
was a hit-and-run and the other resulted in a fatality. He was also driving with his
girlfriend and two small unrestrained children, had a previous DWI conviction, and
received the benefits of a plea agreement where other charges related to driving while
intoxicated were not pursued by the District Attorney.
8 Another case cited by Defendant is State v. Yates, 574 So.2d 566 (La.App
3 Cir.), writ denied, 578 So.2d 131 (La.1991), again where this court held that two
consecutive five-year sentences (the maximum sentence at that time) for two counts
of vehicular homicide were not excessive based on the facts of the case.3 In Yates, the
defendant operated a vehicle while intoxicated, had a head-on collision with another
vehicle carrying four persons, of which two died as a result of the accident, had two
prior DWI convictions, showed no remorse for his conduct, and continued to drink on
a daily basis after the accident.
Once again we are reminded of two key aspects of sentencing: (1)
maximum sentences are reserved for the most serious offenses and offenders, and (2)
that there should be some relative sense of consistency when imposing maximum
sentences. With that in mind, we will review several other cases involving vehicular
homicide. In State v. Guillory, 93-1031 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/27/94), 640 So.2d 427, writ
denied, 94-1380 (La. 9/30/94), 642 So.2d 869, this court held that a fifteen-year-
sentence (the maximum sentence for vehicular homicide at the time of the offense)
was not excessive where the defendant pled guilty to three counts of vehicular
homicide and the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. With a blood
alcohol content almost three times the legal limit at the time of the offense, the
defendant operated a vehicle that ultimately collided with a second vehicle causing the
death of three persons and seriously injuring a fourth. Id. Additionally, the defendant
in Guillory had one prior felony conviction and three misdemeanor convictions and
3 At the time of the Yates offense, the maximum sentence for vehicular homicide was five years.
9 on the night of the accident, after drinking in excess, was urged twice by others not to
drive.
On the other end of the spectrum, in State v. Gibson, 97-108 (La.App. 3
Cir. 4/30/97), 693 So.2d 286, we held that a nine-year sentence for vehicular homicide
was not excessive based on the circumstances of that case. Testimony was adduced
at trial in Gibson that the defendant had a blood alcohol level almost twice the legal
limit at the time; she had been drinking a great part of the day; was warned by her
father, a law enforcement officer, that she should not drink and drive; she showed little
remorse for her conduct after the accident; and pled guilty to public drunkenness while
awaiting trial. At the time Gibson was sentenced, the maximum offense for vehicular
homicide was fifteen years. She received a sentence of nine years, which is just over
half of the maximum sentence. A case worth noting is State v. Trahan, 93-1116
(La.App. 1 Cir. 5/20/94), 637 So.2d 694, which was cited within Gibson. That case
discussed the sentence of a first-time felony offender, without a criminal record, who
was convicted of three counts of vehicular homicide and received three, ten-year
sentences to be served concurrently. It was determined at trial that Trahan had a blood
alcohol content of .10% or greater at the time of the accident, he showed little remorse
for his conduct after the accident, and, while awaiting trial, he was observed driving
after having several drinks at a bar. The court in Trahan concluded that based on the
circumstances of his case and his conduct subsequent to the accident, Trahan’s
sentence was not excessive.
Finally, in State v. Adair, 04-120 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/26/04), 875 So.2d
972, the appellate court held that a ten-year sentence for vehicular homicide was not
10 excessive. In Adair, the defendant operated a vehicle while his blood alcohol content
was more than twice the legal limit; had a previous criminal record, including a DWI
conviction and an aggravated assault conviction; had been warned previously by
family members that he should not drink and drive; and failed to accept responsibility
for the accident until after he was taken to the hospital after the accident. The ten-year
sentence that Adair received was half of the maximum that could have been imposed
at that time.
While this is a tragic and unforgivable accident, based on the foregoing
analysis where offenders received maximum sentences, Defendant’s conduct and
offense contrast notably from the others. Accordingly, we find that Defendant was not
the worst type of offender for whom maximum sentences are typically reserved.
See State v. Runyon, 05-36 (La.App 3 Cir. 11/2/05), 916 So.2d 407, writs denied, 06-
1348 (La. 9/1/06), 936 So.2d 207, 06-0667 (La. 11/17/06), 942 So.2d 526, where this
court vacated and remanded for resentencing a case in which the defendant had
received a maximum sentence, where the court deemed his culpability in the crime was
not on the same level as his co-defendant, who also received a maximum sentence.
See also State v. Whatley, 03-1275, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/3/04), 867 So.2d 955, 959,
where this court vacated and remanded for resentencing, stating:
The state has not cited any indecent behavior cases comparable to the defendant’s where the maximum sentence was imposed. Considering only a bare claim of excessiveness, and without considering the merits of the specific assignments of error, we still conclude that, based on the record before us, the evidence does not establish that the defendant is one of those worst offenders upon whom the maximum penalty should be imposed.
11 Likewise, based on the record in this case, we cannot find that Defendant
is one of the worst offenders for whom the maximum sentence is reserved.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the trial court abused its discretion
in imposing a maximum sentence for Defendant’s vehicular homicide conviction and,
accordingly, said sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for
resentencing in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion.