STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 19-KA-91
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
DENIS Y. AMAYA-RODRIGUEZ COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 16,369, DIVISION "C" HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY, JUDGE PRESIDING
November 13, 2019
HANS J. LILJEBERG JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Marc E. Johnson, and Hans J. Liljeberg
AFFIRMED HJL JGG MEJ COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Honorable Bridget A. Dinvaut Henri P. Dufresne
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, DENIS Y. AMAYA-RODRIGUEZ Lieu T. Vo Clark LILJEBERG, J.
Defendant, Denis Y. Amaya-Rodriguez, appeals the consecutive nature of
the sentences imposed by the trial court following his convictions for three counts
of negligent homicide. For the reasons stated more fully below, we affirm
defendant’s convictions and sentences.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 10, 2016, a St. John the Baptist Parish grand jury indicted
defendant with three counts of negligent homicide in violation of La. R.S. 14:32.
On January 9-11, 2018, the case was tried before a six-person jury that found
defendant guilty as charged on all three counts. Following a sentencing hearing on
April 9, 2018, the trial court sentenced defendant to imprisonment at hard labor for
five years on each count to run consecutively for a total of fifteen years. The trial
court also imposed a fine of $5,000.
On April 23, 2018, defendant filed a timely Motion to Reconsider Sentence
Relative to Consecutive Sentencing of the Defendant that was denied on April 26,
2018. On May 29, 2018, defendant filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal Conviction
and Motion to Reconsider Sentence. On that same date, the trial court granted
defendant’s motion for appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Early Sunday morning on August 28, 2016, defendant was driving a 2003
black El Dorado party bus filled with approximately 40 passengers. The bus was
on the I-10 bridge just west of Laplace headed towards Baton Rouge. While on the
bridge, defendant encountered slow-moving traffic in the left lane passing the
scene of a prior single-vehicle accident located in the right lane of the bridge.
Defendant continued to drive the bus at a high rate of speed in the right lane, and
when he encountered the prior accident scene, he cut over into the slow moving
traffic in the left lane. Defendant failed to slow the bus down and crashed it into
19-KA-91 1 the back of a red Toyota Camry. The impact pushed the Toyota Camry into the
back of a trailer being pulled by a Chevrolet Silverado. The bus then clipped the
left front of a fire truck that was blocking the right lane where the prior accident
occurred. After crashing into these vehicles, the bus then knocked three firemen
who were standing next to the guardrail on the side of the bridge into the water
below. The Toyota Camry and Silverado crashed into the vehicle involved in the
initial accident.
A total of 39 individuals were injured due to the accident. Three individuals
died - a fireman, Spencer Chauvin, and two passengers in the Toyota Camry,
Jermaine Starr and Vontarous Kelly. The entire back of the Toyota Camry was
destroyed due to the force of the impact with the bus. Defendant was subsequently
charged with the negligent homicide of these three individuals.
At the time of the accident, William Beal was employed by the St. John
Parish Fire Department as a firefighter operator. He testified at trial that on August
28, 2016, the fire department received a call regarding a single-vehicle accident on
the bridge. Mr. Beal and his partner, Nick Saale, responded to the call in a fire
truck. Their district chief, Spencer Chauvin, arrived in his unit vehicle. Mr. Beale
explained that when they arrived at the accident scene, they parked the fire truck
behind the accident scene and angled the truck outward from the right shoulder
into the right lane to protect the scene from oncoming traffic. Mr. Beale further
testified that they activated all of the lights on the fire truck, as well as a
“directional” yellow strobe light to divert traffic to the left lane.
While waiting for a tow truck to arrive, Mr. Beal and Mr. Saale were leaning
against the guardrail, and Mr. Chauvin had his back to the interstate. Mr. Beal then
saw a pile of debris fly up into the air and a bus coming toward them. He pushed
Mr. Saale and tried to grab Mr. Chauvin because they did not see the bus. Mr.
Beal testified that he got hit and recalled waking up in the water below the
19-KA-91 2 interstate. Mr. Chauvin told him he thought his leg was broken and Mr. Beal
helped him stay above the water. Mr. Beal yelled to Louisiana State Police
Trooper David Easley, who had also responded to the scene of the prior accident,
to grab a ladder and get on the radio to call for help.
Mr. Beal testified that a person on the bridge pointed out an object in the
water. Mr. Beal then reached under the water and located Mr. Saale, who was
unresponsive and not breathing. Mr. Beal started mouth-to-mouth resuscitation
and chest compressions, and eventually, Mr. Saale started breathing again. Mr.
Beal personally sustained several injuries, including a torn meniscus in his right
knee, a thumb injury, a right shoulder injury, and a head injury. Mr. Beal testified
that the accident changed his life and he has constant nightmares and relives the
accident every day.
Louisiana State Trooper Easley testified that on the morning of August 28,
2016, he received a call to respond to a single-vehicle accident on westbound I-10.
He pulled his vehicle into the right lane of the bridge between the fire truck and the
vehicle in the accident. After conducting his investigation, Trooper Easley
returned to his vehicle to input information into his computer. Three firemen, Mr.
Chauvin, Mr. Beal, and Mr. Saale, were standing approximately 100 feet in front
of his vehicle against the bridge guardrail.
Trooper Easley testified that he was sitting in his car with his window down,
when he heard a crash next to him. He stated that a red vehicle was struck and that
glass and debris came into his vehicle. A bus then passed across the front of his
vehicle and struck the bridge guardrail a few feet in front of where the three
firemen were standing. Trooper Easley next saw that the firemen were missing.
He called for help and observed bus passengers breaking windows and trying to get
out of the bus. He then saw Mr. Chauvin and Mr. Beal in the water, but he could
not find Mr. Saale. Trooper Easley asked other individuals on the scene to help
19-KA-91 3 him retrieve a ladder and put it in the water. Trooper Easley went down the ladder
and a man standing on top of the bridge told him he saw Mr. Saale. He testified
that Mr. Beal pulled Mr. Saale up out of the water and tried to clear his airway.
Trooper Easley recalled that Mr. Chauvin told him his leg was broken and
he and others helped Mr. Chauvin stay above the water until they were able to
place him in a basket and bring him up onto the bridge. Mr. Chauvin appeared to
be in a great deal of pain and lost consciousness. Trooper Easley testified that
following the accident, ten ambulances and five helicopters responded to the scene
to assist with the victims. The accident victims were sent to ten or eleven different
hospitals.
Jana Schwartzberg, a Louisiana State University student, testified that on the
morning of August 28, 2016, she was traveling westbound on I-10 in the left lane
when she noticed a fire truck stopped ahead in the right lane. She looked in her
rearview mirror and saw a black bus moving very fast behind her vehicle. The bus
passed by her in the right lane and she assumed it would try to cut in front of the
slow-moving traffic ahead of her in the left lane. She testified that she saw the bus
try to suddenly cut over, after which debris “flew everywhere.” The bus then
swerved to the right and Ms. Schwartzberg saw more debris fly into the air. She
did not see the black bus slow down or the driver apply his brakes at any time. She
explained that after witnessing the crash, she stopped her car and ran to the
accident scene where she saw several people in the water.
On that same morning, two additional witnesses reported that they saw the
black bus driving erratically about eight to ten miles before the accident scene.
Corey Landry and his co-worker, Gerard Breaux, testified that they were both
driving eighteen-wheeler trucks hauling heavy machinery. Mr. Breaux was
traveling west in the right lane on I-10 behind Mr. Landry when he looked into his
mirror and saw a black bus moving over the center line. He noticed that the bus
19-KA-91 4 was moving close to his load and moved over to allow more room for the bus to
pass. He alerted Mr. Landry over the CB radio to keep an eye on the black bus as
it passed.
After Mr. Breaux alerted him to the situation, Mr. Landry looked in his
mirror and saw the bus almost hit his load. He also moved closer to the guardrail
to allow the bus more room to pass. Mr. Landry explained that after the bus passed
his truck, he saw it swerving in and out of lanes and dodging traffic before it
disappeared from his sight. Then approximately a half mile from the accident
scene, Mr. Landry saw a fire truck, lights and flares in the right lane. He testified
that he and Mr. Breaux had ample time to slow down as they approached the
accident scene.
When they arrived near the crash scene, Mr. Landry and Mr. Breaux both
stopped and exited their trucks. They helped to remove ladders from the fire truck
and place them over the side of the bridge to rescue the men knocked into the
water by the bus. Both Mr. Landry and Mr. Breaux testified that they were not
surprised when he saw that the black bus caused the crash.
Louisiana State Trooper Matthew Montgomery served as the lead
investigator at the crash scene. He testified that when he arrived, he witnessed
“complete chaos” with cars and debris everywhere, and victims in the water below
the bridge. He stated that three people died and 39 or 40 people were injured in the
accident.
During his investigation, Trooper Montgomery determined that nothing
would have obstructed defendant’s view of the fire truck and flares blocking the
lane of the initial accident in front of him. Trooper Montgomery further explained
that a person needed to obtain a commercial driver’s license (“CDL”) to operate a
bus. Trooper Montgomery noted that a person who was operating a commercial
19-KA-91 5 vehicle needed knowledge of air brake systems as they drove differently than
passenger cars.
He further testified that he advised defendant of his rights and spoke to him
with an interpreter present. Trooper Montgomery determined that defendant did
not have either an individual driver’s license or a CDL license. Defendant also
told Trooper Montgomery that at approximately a mile away, he saw a vehicle
slowing down and “something” up ahead. Finally, Trooper Montgomery testified
that defendant’s blood test was negative for marijuana, alcohol, or any type of
opiates, and defendant was not talking or texting on his phone prior to the accident.
Louisiana State Trooper George Castaneda testified that he was called to the
scene because a bus was involved in a fatal accident. Trooper Castaneda explained
that in his position, he performs mandatory federal inspections of commercial
vehicles on a daily basis and had inspected approximately 12,000 vehicles in the
past 13 years. Trooper Castaneda spoke to defendant in Spanish and learned that
while defendant had driven other types of commercial vehicles over the last eight
years, he had no prior experience driving this type of bus. Defendant further
explained that he had only been working for the owner of the bus for two days.
Trooper Castaneda further testified that he conducted a basic inspection of
the bus and did not find any mechanical violations. He stated that due to the
damage, he could not check all of the lights and was unable to determine if the
brakes were working at the time of the crash. He attempted to step on the brake,
but it did not work due to the damage from the impact. He stated that he did not
discover any problem that led to the accident other than “the driver.”
Trooper Lieutenant Eric Burson of the Louisiana State Police was accepted
as an expert in the fields of accident reconstruction, heavy duty reconstruction, and
motor vehicle inspections. He stated that in December of 2017, he performed an
inspection of the bus and an accident reconstruction. He further testified that he
19-KA-91 6 reviewed the video of the accident from a trooper’s dashboard camera and that the
video showed conclusively that the brakes on the bus were working. Trooper
Burson asserted that even though the two rear brakes of the bus were different size
chambers, which was a federal violation, that would not have affected the bus’s
ability to stop. He explained at the time of the crash the front wheels of the bus
were turning to the left, but the bus continued straight toward the guardrail and the
firefighters. He testified that these factors, along with the marks on the roadway,
indicated to him that the brakes were locked up, working, and applied at some
point prior to the crash.
Trooper Burson further testified that since the video showed the front brakes
were working at the time of the accident, it was his opinion that they were working
when defendant saw the initial accident. He also explained that in order to move
the bus after the accident, the tow truck driver had to put caging bolts on the bus to
move it. Trooper Burson explained that this factor indicated the brakes were
working prior to the accident and then became locked up during the crash. He also
testified that if defendant had pulled the emergency brake at the last minute, the
three front skid marks on the road would not have been present.
Trooper Burson opined that the brakes were unequivocally working on the
bus; that all four brakes, front and rear, locked when defendant applied the brakes;
and that the only reason the bus did not stop sooner was “driver error.” Trooper
Burson testified that defendant did not apply the brakes until it was too late to
avoid the crash. He asserted that if defendant had let off the gas pedal a mile out
when he saw the initial accident and lights, he would not have crashed the bus.
Trooper Burson noted that even if the bus had only two brakes and defendant saw
the accident a mile out and “tapped” on the brakes, the bus would have stopped.
Dr. Samantha Huber, forensic pathologist, performed the autopsies of the
victims. She testified that Vontarous Kelly survived for several days after the
19-KA-91 7 accident, but died from complications from blunt force head injuries resulting from
the motor vehicle collision caused by the bus. Jermain Starr’s cause of death was
also the result of blunt force injuries caused by the bus collision, which included
extensive trauma to his face, a perforation of his left eye, contusions of his brain,
herniation of the brain, a right clavicle fracture, a torn carotid artery, a fracture of
one of the thoracic vertebrae in his spine, lacerations of his lungs due to rib
fractures, and a fracture of his left femur. Dr. Huber finally testified that Mr.
Chauvin’s cause of death was blunt force injuries, which included extensive facial
trauma, injuries on his chest, abdomen, and back associated with rib fractures,
front rib fractures consistent with CPR, back rib fractures associated with lung
contusions, extensive liver lacerations that were the main cause of blood loss, and a
fracture of the upper part of the left tibia and left fibula.
After the State rested its case, the defense called Vickie Fuentes as a witness.
Ms. Fuentes testified that on August 28, 2016, she was a passenger on the bus
involved in the accident. She stated that at some point defendant started speeding
and that the bus started moving from side to side the faster defendant went. She
said that she felt like the bus was unbalanced, swaying from side-to-side, and
swerving back and forth.
She testified that when she first saw the initial accident, it was not close.
Ms. Fuentes further testified that she knew the driver saw the accident because she
saw him either “fooling around” with the emergency brake or that he was holding
something. She stated that when defendant saw that he could not brake he told
them to, “[h]old on. Accidente,” which she said meant “crash.” Ms. Fuentes stated
the accident was on the right-hand side and that when defendant could not brake,
he tried to get on the other side. Ms. Fuentes testified that after the accident, the
doorway of the bus was stuck since the bus hit the guardrail on that side, so
everyone got nervous and tried to break the windows to get out. She asserted that
19-KA-91 8 defendant helped the passengers on the bus get out. Afterward, Ms. Fuentes spoke
to law enforcement and gave a statement.
After the jury found defendant guilty of three counts of negligent homicide,
the trial court scheduled a sentencing hearing on April 9, 2018. Following a
statement from Mr. Chauvin’s wife, the prosecutor pointed out that three
individuals passed away that day because of defendant’s actions. He asked the
trial court to give defendant the strictest sentence allowable under the law after
considering defendant’s gross negligence, his complete failure to consider other
lives, and the resulting accident which left many families without fathers,
husbands, sons and brothers.
Defendant subsequently addressed the trial court explaining his sorrow for
causing the accident, but also stating that he did not consider himself “truthfully
guilty.” The trial court then sentenced defendant to three consecutive five-year
sentences and provided the following reasons for imposing consecutive sentences:
The next decision is whether to run this matter consecutively or concurrent. I’ve made this decision today that you will have these five year sentences to run consecutively. The law must tells me [sic] I must consider a number of factors when I make that very profound decision.
Firstly, I don’t find that you have any criminal past that I can discern or consider here today. While the mechanics of the event were violent, they were not violent events based on legal charges.
The last element is the one that causes me the most pause and upon which I rest my decision today. It is the risk the Court thinks that the defendant may pose to the safety of the community. That’s my basis for my running these sentences consecutive. In other words, one after the other.
During the hearing of the trial, I was profoundly concerned with your lack of judgment, your lack of the ability to keep people in your charge safe and then your actions when coming upon other people, strangers. Because of my profound thoughts that you create a gross risk to this community, to the driving public, I find that a reason for imposing these sentences in a consecutive fashion. For these reasons orally assigned, I make that finding and we will commit those reasons and maybe others to writing within the next five days.1 1 The record does not reflect that the trial court’s reasons were reduced to writing.
19-KA-91 9 On April 23, 2018, defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider Sentence
Relative to Consecutive Sentencing of the Defendant. In that motion, defendant
argued that the consecutive sentences were unconstitutionally excessive and that
the trial court failed to properly consider mitigating factors for sentencing leniency,
including that he has no prior convictions or arrests for crimes of violence, he did
not own the bus he was driving, he stayed and helped the bus passengers after the
accident when others told him to leave, and that was his first day driving the bus
that was involved in the accident. He also pointed out that he has been driving
commercial vehicles since he was eighteen years old.2 Defendant argued that his
crime of criminal negligence while driving a vehicle does not show any
viciousness or potential to be dangerous. He stated that he is an illegal alien and
that once his sentence is completed, he will be sent back to Honduras, his native
land, so he would no longer be a danger to the citizens of this community.
Defendant further contended that the trial court did not provide sufficient reasons
on the record to justify consecutive sentences. On April 26, 2018, the trial court
denied defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence. As previously stated, defendant
filed a timely motion to appeal.
DISCUSSION
In his assignments of error, defendant argues the trial court erred by denying
his motion to reconsider sentence and contends that the maximum consecutive
sentences imposed by the trial court are unconstitutionally excessive.
He contends that he was engaged in only one act that was determined to be
criminal negligence, that he has no record of prior criminal activity, and that he
showed extreme remorse at sentencing. Defendant also contends the trial court’s
perception that he posed a risk to the public safety was unfounded as there was no
2 The record indicates that defendant’s date of birth is August 12, 1979.
19-KA-91 10 evidence that he had any prior traffic infractions or that the events leading up to
this accident were anything but an isolated event with tragic consequences.
Additionally, defendant asserts that the trial court failed to consider the mitigating
evidence provided by one of the bus passengers, Ms. Fuentes, who he says testified
that once the initial accident came into sight, defendant made motions as if he were
trying to operate the brakes on the bus before shouting “hold on” and “crash” in
Spanish. He also asserts that the trial court failed to consider that instead of fleeing
the scene, he stayed and assisted the passengers on the bus.
The State responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
sentencing and that the maximum consecutive sentences were not constitutionally
excessive. It further responds that the trial court considered the severity of the
crime by acknowledging the profound impact the crime had on the lives of the
three deceased victims, their families, and the community as a whole. The State
asserts that the trial court presented reasonable justification and consideration in
imposing maximum consecutive sentences for all three counts of negligent
homicide.
Defendant was convicted of three counts of negligent homicide in violation
of La. R.S. 14:32, which provides a sentencing range of imprisonment with or
without hard labor for not more than five years, a fine of not more than $5,000, or
both. The trial court sentenced him to five years at hard labor on each count to run
consecutively and a $5,000 fine. As explained above, defendant argues the three
maximum consecutive sentences are unconstitutionally excessive. Defendant did
not orally object to the sentences below. However, because defendant challenged
his sentences and the consecutive nature of them in a timely written motion to
reconsider sentence filed in the trial court, those issues are properly before this
Court on review. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(E).
19-KA-91 11 The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 20
of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of excessive punishment.
Although a sentence is within statutory limits, it may be reviewed for constitutional
excessiveness. State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So.2d 1, 4. A sentence
is considered excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the offense or imposes
needless and purposeless pain and suffering. Id. A sentence is grossly
disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the
harm done to society, it shocks the sense of justice. State v. Lawson, 04-334 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 9/28/04), 885 So.2d 618, 622.
A trial judge has broad discretion when imposing a sentence, and a
reviewing court may not set a sentence aside absent a manifest abuse of discretion.
State v. Dorsey, 07-67 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/29/07), 960 So.2d 1127, 1130. The issue
on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion, not whether another
sentence might have been more appropriate. Id. The appellate court shall not set
aside a sentence for excessiveness if the record supports the sentence imposed.
State v. Pearson, 07-332, 07-333, 07-539 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/07), 975 So.2d
646, 656. In reviewing a trial court’s sentencing discretion, three factors are
considered: 1) the nature of the crime; 2) the nature and background of the
offender; and 3) the sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and
other courts. Id.
When two or more convictions arise from the same act or transaction, or
constitute 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. Although Article 883 favors the imposition
of concurrent sentences for crimes committed as part of the same transaction or
series of transactions, a trial court retains the discretion to impose consecutive
penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender’s past criminality,
19-KA-91 12 violence in the charged crimes, and the risks he poses to the safety of the
community. State v. Wilson, 14-551 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/28/15), 167 So.3d 903,
912. If the trial court imposes consecutive sentences for crimes arising from a
single course of conduct, it must articulate the reasons it feels the sentence is
necessary. Id. Although the imposition of consecutive sentences requires
particular justification when the crime arises from a single course of conduct,
consecutive sentences are not necessarily excessive. Wilson, 167 So.3d at 912.
In the instant matter, the evidence demonstrates the fire truck was stopped in
the right lane and the right shoulder of the interstate and that flashing lights and
flares were activated to warn drivers to slow down and to move to the left lane.
The evidence also shows that defendant was driving recklessly prior to and at the
time of the accident. Ms. Schwartzberg testified that the bus was going very fast in
the right lane, that it did not slow down or brake, and that the bus driver tried to cut
over in front of everyone else into the left lane, after which debris “flew
everywhere.” Mr. Landry testified that prior to the accident, the bus was swerving
in and out of lanes and almost hit him. Mr. Breaux testified that the bus kept
crossing the center line and came close to his load. Neither Mr. Landry nor Mr.
Breaux had a problem slowing down their trucks and moving to the left lane when
they saw the lights.
Though defendant does not have a prior criminal history, his dangerous and
reckless actions caused the violent deaths of three individuals and injured almost
39 other people. He jeopardized the safety of dozens of people in the bus and on
the roadway. Defendant did not have a regular driver’s license or a commercial
driver’s license, which was needed to operate the bus. Trooper Burson testified
that the brakes on the bus were working at the time of the accident and that the
reason that the bus did not stop sooner was “driver error.” Trooper Montgomery
testified that based on his investigation, there was nothing obstructing the bus
19-KA-91 13 driver’s view of the initial accident. He opined that there was no reason why the
bus driver would not have seen the fire truck or the flares. Trooper Montgomery
asserted that defendant admitted to him that he saw a vehicle slowing down and
“something” up ahead approximately a mile away. At sentencing, although
defendant said that he felt sorry for what happened, he stated that he did not
consider himself “truthfully guilty.”
Louisiana courts have affirmed maximum or near maximum sentences in
connection with negligent homicide convictions involving automobile accidents.
In State v. Shell, 16-873 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/12/17), 216 So.3d 853, the defendant
pled no contest to negligent homicide following an automobile accident that
resulted in the death of the passenger, and the trial court sentenced him to four
years at hard labor. In imposing sentence, the trial court noted the defendant’s
blood alcohol level was .05, he was traveling seventy-five miles per hour in a
thirty-five mile per hour zone, he lost control of the vehicle, and there was no
evidence of braking. Id. at 856. The trial court also considered mitigating factors,
including the defendant’s lack of a criminal history and that he expressed remorse.
Id. at 856-57. The trial court found a significant sentence was required based on
the loss sustained by the friends and family of the young eighteen-year-old victim
and the “exacting, reckless” nature of the underlying offense. On appeal, the
appellate court indicated that the sentence was not excessive given the “life-
altering nature of the offense to all involved.” Id. at 858-59.
In State v. Hughes, 03-420 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/31/03), 865 So.2d 853, writ
denied, 04-663 (La. 9/24/04), 882 So.2d 1165, the appellate court affirmed a five-
year sentence for negligent homicide. The facts showed that after the defendant
and her estranged husband got into an argument, she attempted to commit suicide
by driving her car into the path of a pickup truck driven by the victim. The victim
died as a result of the impact. Even though the defendant was a first-time felony
19-KA-91 14 offender and a mother of four children, the appellate court held that the maximum
five-year sentence was not excessive.
In State v. Rogers, 07-276 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/3/07), 966 So.2d 1212, the
court affirmed the trial court’s sentence of three and one-half years of
imprisonment where the defendant, who was driving at an excessive rate of speed
with the victim and her young son as passengers, crashed. The victim remained in
the car and was burnt beyond recognition while the defendant hitchhiked to the
victim’s parents’ house and left the victim’s son on the porch. After he returned
home, the defendant failed to report the incident.
Jurisprudence examining consecutive sentences for similar negligent
homicide convictions is limited. In State v. Pelt, 448 So.2d 1294 (La. 1984), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 825, 105 S.Ct. 104, 83 L.Ed.2d 48 (1984), the defendant was
convicted of negligent homicide arising from a collision between the defendant’s
truck and a motorcycle which resulted in the death of two people. There was
evidence that the defendant had been drinking. The defendant had a history of
traffic and DWI offenses. The Louisiana Supreme Court found that the two five-
year concurrent sentences were not excessive.
While a comparison of sentences imposed for similar crimes may provide
insight, sentences must be individualized to the particular offender and to the
particular offense committed. State v. Ducksworth, 17-35 (La. App. 5 Cir.
12/13/17), 234 So.3d 225, 237. 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, cert. denied, 519
U.S. 1043, 117 S.Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996).
Based on the record and reasons provided by the trial court, we cannot find
that the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion by finding defendant to be
19-KA-91 15 a gross risk to society and imposing consecutive sentences. At sentencing,
defendant stated that he did not consider himself “truthfully guilty.” At the time of
the accident, defendant was driving without any type of license. Several witnesses
testified regarding the reckless nature of defendant’s driving even well prior to the
accident, and this behavior resulted in the death of three individuals and the injury
of numerous others.
ERRORS PATENT DISCUSSION
The record was reviewed for errors patent, according to La. C.Cr.P. art. 920;
State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175
(La. App. 5th Cir. 1990). We find no errors requiring corrective action.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant’s convictions and
consecutive sentences on three counts of negligent homicide.
AFFIRMED
19-KA-91 16 SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
MARY E. LEGNON FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN BUCHHOLZ STEPHEN J. WINDHORST FIRST DEPUTY CLERK HANS J. LILJEBERG JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C. LEDET JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY NOVEMBER 13, 2019 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
19-KA-91 E-NOTIFIED 40TH DISTRICT COURT (CLERK) HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY (DISTRICT JUDGE) HONORABLE BRIDGET A. DINVAUT LIEU T. VO CLARK (APPELLANT) HENRI P. DUFRESNE (APPELLEE) (APPELLEE)
MAILED NO ATTORNEYS WERE MAILED