Judgment rendered May 22, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,634-KA No. 55,635-KA (Consolidated Cases)
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
RUSTIN RANDALL MIDDLETON Appellant
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court Nos. 382,343 and 382,427
Honorable Donald Edgar Hathaway, Jr., Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Peggy J. Sullivan
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
RON CHRISTOPHER STAMPS REBECCA A. EDWARDS Assistant District Attorneys
Before STONE, COX, and THOMPSON, JJ. COX, J.
Rustin Randall Middleton was charged with two counts each of
aggravated rape and sexual battery under two docket numbers in Caddo
Parish, which were consolidated into one proceeding. Middleton was found
guilty as charged on all four counts. He was sentenced to two life sentences,
99 years, and 10 years, all to be served consecutively at hard labor and
without benefits. Middleton now appeals his convictions and sentences. For
the following reasons, we affirm and remand with instructions.
FACTS
On July 21, 2021, Middleton, born 7/8/1986, was indicted on the
following four charges:
Count 1: aggravated rape as defined in La. R.S. 14:42(A)(4)- the victim is N.M.(DOB: 9/25/2006);1
Count 2: sexual battery as defined in La. R.S. 14:43.1(A)(2) and (C)(2)- the victim is N.M.;
Count 3: aggravated rape as defined in La. R.S. 14:42(A)(4)- the victim is D.H. (DOB 4/23/93);
Count 4: sexual battery in violation in La. R.S. 14:43.1(A)(2)- the victim is D.H.
The jury trial commenced on March 21, 2023. Jennifer Brumley
testified that she is N.M.’s mother; Middleton is her ex-husband; and,
Middleton adopted N.M. after they had been married for six months. Ms.
Brumley stated that N.M. did not come home from school one afternoon in
April of 2021. She stated that N.M. was ultimately found at Byrd High
1 La. R.S. 14:42(E) states:
For all purposes, “aggravated rape” and “first degree rape” mean the offense defined by the provisions of this Section and any reference to the crime of aggravated rape is the same as a reference to the crime of first degree rape. Any act in violation of the provisions of this Section committed on or after August 1, 2015, shall be referred to as “first degree rape”. School by her grandparents and went to her grandparents’ house because she
was “deathly afraid” of Middleton. She testified that while at her
grandparents’ house that evening, N.M. told her that she attempted suicide
twice because Middleton was sexually abusing her. When Ms. Brumley
asked her what that meant, N.M. described tickling that went too far when
she was six to eight years old and stated Middleton began putting his penis
in her mouth when she was 11 years old, the summer after she completed
sixth grade. Ms. Brumley testified that when N.M. told her when the abuse
began, she realized that the abuse coincided with N.M.’s personality
changing and her grades falling. N.M. was in a gifted student program and
attended Caddo Middle Magnet for both the seventh and eighth grades. Ms.
Brumley stated that N.M.’s grades continued to fall in high school.
Ms. Brumley testified that when she learned of the abuse, she called
the police and gave police N.M.’s suicide note and journal, in which N.M.
had written about the abuse. Ms. Brumley stated that N.M. was taken to the
psychiatric ward at Ochsner Shreveport and later to Brentwood Hospital
because of her suicide attempts. She stated that she learned N.M. was
cutting herself prior to the disclosure and continued cutting herself for six to
eight months after the disclosure.
On cross-examination, Ms. Brumley stated that N.M. was required to
make at least a 2.5 GPA to stay at Byrd because it was not her neighborhood
school. She testified that a 2.5 was an “easy C” and N.M. was not
maintaining that GPA. She stated that N.M. was supposed to bring her
report card home on the day she disclosed the abuse.
N.M. testified in another room and her testimony was simultaneously
televised into the courtroom for the jury. N.M.’s Gingerbread House video 2 was played for the jury. She testified that everything she stated in the video
was true. She stated that she began writing down the things Middleton did
to her when she was in the ninth grade but did not show them to anyone until
the day she did not come home from school. Twenty-eight pages of journal
entries were read to the jury. N.M. stated that the front of her journal entries
says “goodbye, sorry” because she was planning to kill herself. She stated
that she cannot remember the date she began writing the journal entries but
the portion that says “goodbye” was written on February 9, 2021. Her
journal entries revealed that she could not tell anyone what was happening
and liked to just be alone. One entry details physical abuse, stating that
Middleton would choke her until she passed out, “bang” her into walls, and
slap her. N.M. testified that if she told Middleton she was going to tell her
mom about him beating her, he would say that he would make up a reason
for beating her, like she had been lying.
In one of the journal entries, N.M. described a time when she was six
or eight and Middleton told her to kneel in front of his chair and close her
eyes. He put his penis in her mouth and she gagged and choked. She stated
that she peeked and saw that it was his penis, but he lied and said it was a
test with his thumbs. In another journal entry, she stated that tickling
reminds her of when Middleton would tickle her and “go too low.” She
stated in her journal, “He would mess with me and I would cry. Every time
I would cry. I used to be terrified of him. So I would say I didn’t like it, and
he would tell me I did. Eventually I would get scared and give in and tell
him what he wanted to hear.” Another journal entry contains details of
being forced to kiss him and have “make out sessions.” Multiple journal
entries contain details of N.M. telling Middleton “no” but ultimately being 3 forced to perform sexual acts. N.M. stated that this would happen when no
one else was home or when siblings were told to leave the room.
N.M. summarized some of the abuse in one of her journal entries. She
stated, “HELP ME! Sexually harassed!” and listed the following:
(1) at around 6(?)2 was forced to my knees, told to close my eyes, gagged, then lied to (2) Every time being tickled would go too far- since around 6(?) (3) Slaps me down to ground if I say no (4) master at fake orgasms without ever really having one I think (5) cried almost every time being touched (6) talked about like I was gonna get raped (7) Never had a choice, always threatened (8) Tell anyone & you die (9) Terrifying! Hate myself & body! No one ever cares or is ever gonna save me. (10) Last time was while out of school [because] others were ACT testing. First was 6th grade (going to 7th) summer break On cross-examination, N.M. was questioned about her grades. She
stated that she was not maintaining the required GPA but would not be
kicked out of Byrd until the end of the year. She stated she was scared to go
home with her report card because she was failing and had lied to her
parents about online access to her report card.
Meaghan Hughes was accepted as an expert in forensic interviewing,
delayed reporting, and childhood sexual trauma. She testified that she is a
forensic interviewer at the Gingerbread House and interviewed N.M. Ms.
Hughes’s notes from the interview were filed into evidence. Her notes detail
the following statements from N.M. during the interview: tickling went too
far; Middleton would touch her vagina and boobs; N.M. forced to kiss
Middleton; N.M. was scared; and Middleton beat N.M. and threatened her.
2 N.M. testified that the question marks indicated she could not remember her exact age, just the range of six to eight years old.
4 Ms. Hughes’s notes also contain N.M.’s account of being forced to close her
eyes while Middleton put his penis in her mouth but told her it was his
thumbs.
Olivia Ferguson testified that she is a counselor at the Gingerbread
House and counseled N.M. after she was referred by the family advocate
team. She testified that in a typical situation, the abused child will attend six
to 25 counseling sessions; N.M. attended 74 sessions and was one of the
most severe cases Ms. Ferguson has seen. Ms. Ferguson stated that she
diagnosed N.M. with PTSD as a result of her physical, sexual, and emotional
abuse.
D.H. testified that he is Middleton’s stepbrother. He stated that his
mother married Middleton’s father when he was about six years old and
Middleton is six or seven years older than him. D.H. testified that sometime
after he turned eight years old, Middleton called him into his room to watch
pornography. He stated that this happened multiple times and progressed
into Middleton asking him to sit on his lap and touching his penis. He
testified that the abuse stopped when Middleton moved out of the house but
began again when he was 11 and Middleton moved back into the home. He
stated that when he was 12, Middleton performed oral sex on him and asked
for it in return. He stated that he was always uncomfortable and finally told
Middleton he was not doing it anymore. He testified that his family moved
to Arkansas after that and Middleton did not move with them. D.H. stated
that after he heard about N.M.’s disclosure, he disclosed to his mother what
happened to him. He testified that he felt “extremely guilty” for not
disclosing the incidents sooner because he felt like he could have prevented
what happened to N.M. 5 Shreveport Police Department Detective David Karam testified that he
received a call at 2:30 a.m. on April 13, 2021, informing him that N.M.
disclosed being sexually abused by her father. He stated that he observed
N.M.’s interview at the Gingerbread House and reviewed her journal entries.
He stated that he learned that Middleton had penetrated N.M.’s vagina with
his fingers and forced her to perform oral sex. He testified that during his
investigation, he was informed that D.H. disclosed sexual abuse by
Middleton as well. Det. Karam obtained an arrest warrant for Middleton and
alerted Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Department (“CPSD”) for the portion of the
investigation that occurred outside Shreveport city limits.
CPSD Detective Christopher Ardoin testified that he received
information from Det. Karam on D.H.’s report of sexual abuse. Det.
Ardoin’s account of his interview with D.H. corroborated D.H.’s testimony.
The defense called R.M., N.M.’s younger sister and Middleton’s
daughter, to the stand. At the time of trial, R.M. was 12 years old. She
stated that after her Gingerbread House interview, she knew she had not
been completely honest with the interviewer. R.M. could not recall details
of the interview but knew she lied about not seeing her sister being abused.
She stated she was not truthful because she was scared of Middleton.
Middleton testified that he had cancer at the age of 15 and has been
disabled and unable to work since 2013. He stated that he has been on
various medications in the past and is currently on medication for pain,
nerve damage, and sleep. Middleton admitted that N.M. would rub the
outside of his thigh and foot because it helped with the nerve damage, but he
denied that she ever rubbed the inside of his thigh. Middleton also denied
living in the house with D.H. when D.H. claimed Middleton had moved 6 back in. Middleton testified that D.H.’s testimony was “disgusting” and
denied ever sexually abusing D.H.
Middleton testified that he required his children to make straight A’s
and would discipline them for making B’s or C’s. He stated that he
threatened to take N.M. out of Byrd before they kicked her out if she had
F’s. Middleton stated that N.M. did not bring her report card home the
previous week and was told to bring it home on Monday, April 12, 2021.
He testified that she texted him that she was riding the bus home instead of
going to tutoring and he asked her if she had her report card. He stated that
N.M. never came home on the bus. Middleton detailed the places he
searched for N.M. when she did not get off the bus. Middleton stated that
police arrived at his house the next day and arrested him for rape. Middleton
denied the rape and sexually abusing anyone. On cross-examination,
Middleton admitted to being physically abusive in spanking the children.
The jury deliberated for about an hour and a half and unanimously
found Middleton guilty as charged on all four counts.
Middleton filed a motion for new trial and motion for post-verdict
judgment of acquittal, which were denied in open court. At sentencing, the
trial court detailed the negative effects on both victims and highlighted that
Middleton had been so cruel to N.M. that she had to testify from a different
location. The trial court stated that because he preyed on both male and
female victims, he was the worst of the worst. The trial court found the
following from La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1(A) to be applicable: there is an undue
risk that defendant will commit another crime; defendant needs correctional
treatment; and a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the
crime. Regarding aggravating factors, the trial court found: the offender’s 7 conduct during the commission of the offense manifested deliberate cruelty
to the victims; the offender knew or should have known that the victims
were particularly vulnerable or incapable of resistance due to youth; the
offender used his position or status to facilitate the commission of the
offense; the offender used threats or actual violence in the commission of the
offense; the offense resulted in a significant permanent injury to the victim
and his/her family; the offender was persistently involved in similar
offenses; and the offender has not accepted responsibility for his actions.
The trial court considered mitigating factors but did not find any to apply.
The trial court sentenced Middleton to the following sentences, all to
be served at hard labor and without benefits: life for count 1; 99 years for
count 2; life for count 3; and 10 years for count 4. The sentences were
ordered to run consecutively. The trial court filed into the record its
sentencing guideline, outlining its sentencing considerations. Middleton
filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied by the trial court.
Middleton now appeals.
ARGUMENTS
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Middleton asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to support the
felony convictions. Middleton highlights N.M.’s grades and N.M. not
bringing her report card home. He testified that he never sexually abused
N.M., but he told her days before the reported abuse that she would have to
go to Huntington High School if she had F’s on her report card. He argues
that there were no witnesses to corroborate N.M.’s testimony and no
physical evidence was introduced. He highlights that N.M.’s journal entries
were written in her ninth-grade year, the same year she disclosed the abuse. 8 Regarding D.H., Middleton states that he did not live in the home with
D.H. for “some time” prior to the report of abuse. He points out that D.H.’s
allegations were not made until after N.M. made her allegations. Middleton
argues that N.M. and D.H. were close and he had previously expressed that
they were too close. Middleton also denied ever abusing D.H.
The State highlights the detailed testimonies of N.M., her mother, Ms.
Hughes, Ms. Ferguson, Det. Karam, Det. Ardoin, D.H., and R.M. The State
argues that the testimonies of N.M. and D.H. were sufficient to establish the
elements of the offenses. The State asserts that the jury was required to
make a witness credibility determination and Middleton’s arguments were
not believed by the jury.
The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence
claim is whether, after viewing the case in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
of the crime proven 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); State v. Steines, 51,698 (La. App. 2 Cir.
11/15/17), 245 So. 3d 224, writ denied, 17-2174 (La. 10/8/18), 253 So. 3d
797. This standard, now legislatively embodied in La. 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. Steines, supra. The
appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the
evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d 442; State v.
Bass, 51,411 (La. App. 2 Cir 6/21/17), 223 So. 3d 1242. A reviewing court
9 affords great deference to a trial court’s decision to accept or reject the
testimony of a witness in whole or in part. Bass, supra.
It is the province of the fact finder to resolve conflicting inferences
from the evidence. In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable
conflict with physical evidence, the testimony of one witness—if believed
by the trier of fact—is sufficient to support the requisite factual conclusion.
Such testimony alone is sufficient even where the state does not introduce
medical, scientific, or physical evidence. This is equally applicable to the
testimony of sexual assault victims. Bass, supra.
La. R.S. 14:42 states, in relevant part:
A. First degree rape is a rape committed upon a person sixty- five years of age or older or where the anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following circumstances: … (4) When the victim is under the age of thirteen years. Lack of knowledge of the victim’s age shall not be a defense.
La. R.S. 14:43.1 states, in relevant part:
A. Sexual battery is the intentional touching of the anus or genitals of the victim by the offender using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the offender, directly or through clothing, or the touching of the anus or genitals of the offender by the victim using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the victim, directly or through clothing, when any of the following occur: … (2) The victim has not yet attained fifteen years of age and is at least three years younger than the offender.
The evidence was sufficient to convict Middleton of first degree rape
and sexual battery of N.M. N.M. testified that Middleton began
inappropriately touching her and putting his penis in her mouth when she
was six or eight years old, and her journal entries about the incidents were
read for the jury. In addition, Ms. Ferguson, N.M.’s counselor from the 10 Gingerbread House, testified that N.M. was one of the most severe cases she
had seen as a result of abuse. Ms. Ferguson testified that N.M. suffered
from PTSD because of Middleton’s abuse. Middleton testified on his own
behalf and denied the allegations made by N.M. Middleton admitted that his
physical discipline of the children would be taken too far, but he stated he
never sexually abused N.M.
The jury was required to make a credibility determination as to
whether they believed Middleton’s testimony or that of N.M. N.M.’s
testimony was supported by her journal entries and the testimony of her
counselor, Ms. Ferguson. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at
trial, the jury had sufficient evidence to find Middleton guilty of the crimes
against N.M. This argument lacks merit.
The evidence was also sufficient to convict Middleton of first degree
rape and sexual battery of D.H. D.H.’s testimony alone was sufficient for
the jury to find Middleton guilty. D.H. stated that Middleton began bringing
him into his room to watch pornography after he turned 8 years old. He
stated that watching pornography progressed into sitting on Middleton’s lap,
touching his penis, and performing oral sex. Again, because Middleton
testified and denied the allegations made by D.H., the jury was tasked with
making a credibility determination. The guilty verdict indicates that the jury
found D.H. to be credible and believed his version of the events. We will
not disturb the jury’s credibility determination in this case. This assignment
of error lacks merit. We affirm Middleton’s four convictions.
Excessive Sentence
Middleton argues that he should not be characterized as the worst of
the worst. He argues that the trial court erred in including his failure to 11 accept responsibility for his actions as an aggravating factor. He states that
his constitutional right to trial should not be considered an aggravating
factor. He argues that while the life sentences were mandatory, the
remainder of the sentencing decisions were not. He asserts that the
consecutive sentences and 99-year sentence are constitutionally excessive.
The State argues that a review of the sentencing transcript precludes
any finding of an abuse of sentencing discretion by the trial court. The State
detailed the trial court’s considerations under the La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1
factors and noted that the trial court also filed a sentencing memorandum
outlining sentencing considerations.
Trial courts have limited discretion to order that multiple sentences be
served concurrently or consecutively. State v. Powell, 54,893 (La. App. 2
Cir. 3/1/23), 357 So. 3d 559, writ denied, 23-00428 (La. 10/31/23), 372
So.3d 809; State v. Sandifer, 54,103 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/15/21), 330 So. 3d
1270. Concurrent sentences that arise from a single course of conduct are
not mandatory; likewise, consecutive sentences under those circumstances
are not necessarily excessive. Powell, supra; State v. Harris, 52,663 (La.
App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19), 277 So. 3d 912. However, where convictions stem
from separate incidents involving different victims and occurring over a
lengthy period of time, the resulting consecutive penalties will not be found
to be an abuse of discretion. Powell, supra; State v. Bailey, 50,097 (La.
App. 2 Cir. 9/30/15), 180 So. 3d 442.
An appellate court utilizes a two-pronged test in reviewing a sentence
for excessiveness. First, the record must show the trial court took
cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The trial judge
is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating circumstance so long 12 as the record reflects he adequately considered the guidelines of the article.
State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983); State v. Garner, 52,047 (La. App.
2 Cir. 6/27/18), 250 So. 3d 1152. 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. Where the record clearly shows an adequate
factual basis for the sentence imposed, remand is unnecessary even where
there has not been full compliance with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State v.
Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049 (La. 1981); State v. Brooks, 52,249 (La. App. 2 Cir.
9/26/18), 256 So. 3d 524; State v. Ates, 43,327 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/13/08),
989 So. 2d 259, writ denied, 08-2341 (La. 5/15/09), 8 So. 3d 581. The
important elements which should be considered are the defendant’s personal
history (age, family ties, marital status, health, and employment record),
prior criminal record, the seriousness of the offense, and the likelihood of
rehabilitation. There is no requirement that specific matters be given any
particular weight at sentencing. State v. Taves, 03-0518 (La. 12/03/03), 861
So. 2d 144; Brooks, supra.
Second, 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. Smith, 01-
2574 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So. 2d 1; Garner, supra. 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. Brooks,
supra.
The trial court has wide discretion in the imposition of sentences
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- 13 3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So. 2d 7; Brooks, supra. On review, an appellate
court does not determine whether another sentence may have been more
appropriate, but whether the trial court abused its discretion. Williams,
supra; Brooks, supra.
Whoever commits the crime of first degree rape shall be punished by
life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or
suspension of sentence. La. R.S. 14:42(D)(1). La. R.S. 14:43.1 provides, in
pertinent part:
C. (1) Whoever commits the crime of sexual battery shall be punished by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, for not more than ten years.
(2) Whoever commits the crime of sexual battery on a victim under the age of thirteen years when the offender is seventeen years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for not less than twenty-five years nor more than ninety- nine years. At least twenty-five years of the sentence imposed shall be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
La. C. Cr. P. art. 883 states:
If the 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. Other sentences of imprisonment shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that some or all of them be served concurrently. In the case of the concurrent sentence, the judge shall specify, and the court minutes shall reflect, the date from which the sentences are to run concurrently.
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. Lapoole, 51,199 (La. App. 2 Cir.
2/15/17), 215 So. 3d 430, writ denied, 17-0618 (La. 11/28/17), 230 So. 3d
220. 14 Middleton’s sentences were all set to run consecutively to one
another. Middleton had a total of four crimes against two separate victims
and the crimes occurred over multiple years. The crimes against N.M. were
a separate occurrence from the crimes against D.H. The sexual battery and
first degree rape of N.M. occurred over a span of over five years. The
sexual battery and first degree rape of D.H. occurred over approximately
four years. These four convictions arise out of at least four separate
incidents. Therefore, the consecutive sentences are appropriate under La. C.
Cr. P. art. 883.
Middleton’s two sentences of life imprisonment for first degree rape
were mandatory under La. R.S. 14:42. The trial court had no discretion in
the imposition of those sentences. Middleton was given two maximum
sentences of 10 years and 99 years under La. R.S. 14:43.1(C)(1) and (C)(2),
respectively. We review these two sentences under the abuse of discretion
standard.
We do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing
Middleton to 10 years and 99 years for sexual battery. The trial court took
cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The trial court
found that there was an undue risk that Middleton would commit another
crime; Middleton needed correctional treatment; and a lesser sentence would
deprecate the seriousness of the offense. The trial court’s list of aggravated
factors is listed above, and although he did not find any mitigating factors to
apply, he stated that he did consider them. The trial court noted the negative
effects that Middleton’s action had on both victims. Although the trial court
mentions that Middleton did not take responsibility for his actions,
Middleton has maintained his innocence. Factors are not given particular 15 weight at sentencing. Therefore, not considering this one factor, the trial
court’s remaining sentencing considerations are supported by the record and
sufficient to support the sentences. The first prong of our review has been
met.
Now, we turn to whether the sentences were grossly disproportionate
to the offenses. Given the prolonged and sexual nature of the offenses and
the fact that Middleton had a male and female victim, the trial court found
Middleton to be the worst of the worst. We agree. The facts reveal that
Middleton began inappropriately touching his victims at a very young age
and continued the conduct for years. These maximum sentences do not
shock the sense of justice and are not disproportionate to the years of abuse
suffered by the victims.
This assignment of error lacks merit. We affirm Middleton’s
sentences.
Error Patent
A review for error patents reveals that the record does not include a
written notice of the sex offender registration requirements set forth in La.
R.S. 15:540, et seq. The State also concedes this error in brief. Middleton’s
convictions are sex offenses under La. R.S. 15:541. La. R.S. 15:543 requires
that the trial court provide written notice of the registration and notification
requirements to a defendant convicted of a sex offense and that an entry be
made in the court minutes stating that the written notification was provided
to the defendant. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court for
the purpose of providing the appropriate written notice to Middleton of the
sex offender registration requirements on his convictions and for the filing of
16 written proof of such notice in the record of the proceedings. State v. Allen,
54,153 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/15/21), 331 So. 3d 1101.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the convictions and sentences of the defendant, Rustin
Randall Middleton. We remand this matter to the trial court for the limited
purpose of providing the defendant with the appropriate written notice of the
sex offender registration requirements.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED; REMANDED
WITH INSTRUCTIONS.