State Of Louisiana v. Eric Matherne

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2020 KA 0388
k+
E STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ERIC MATHERNE

Judgment rendered: DEC 3 0 2020

On Appeal from the
Seventeenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Lafourche
State of Louisiana
No. 567913, Div. " D"

The Honorable Christopher J. Boudreaux, Judge Presiding

Kristine Russel Attorneys for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Greg Stahlnecker
Jason Chatagnier
Lisa Pinho
Assistant District Attorneys
Thibodaux, Louisiana

Bertha M. Hillman Attorney for Defendant/Appellant
Louisiana Appellate Project Eric Matherne
Covington, LA

BEFORE: McDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.

HOLDRIDGE, J.

The defendant, Eric Matherne, was charged by grand jury indictment with

first degree rape, a violation La. R.S. 14: 42( A)(4). He pled not guilty. Following a

jury trial, he was found guilty as charged by unanimous verdict. He was sentenced

to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension

of sentence. He moved for reconsideration of sentence, but the motion was denied.

He now appeals challenging his sentence as unconstitutionally excessive. For the

following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

FACTS

The victim, V.I.,, was twenty months old on July 18, 2017. On that date, her

grandmother discovered blood in her diaper and took her to Our Lady of the Sea

Hospital for treatment. She was quickly transferred to the Audrey Hepburn Center, a

child abuse program at Children' s Hospital in New Orleans.

Dr. Neha Mehta, Medical Director of the Audrey Hepburn Center, examined

the victim. The victim had dried blood on the external areas of her genital area. ( R.

731). She was bleeding from her vagina. Part of her hymen had been " torn away."

She had bruising and abrasions in the genital area. There were visual signs of

penetrating trauma. Her perineum ( the piece of skin between the vagina and the

anus) had been abraded. She also had an internal tear in her vagina that was repaired

with stitches.
Dr. Mehta' s diagnosis was non-accidental penetrating vaginal trauma.

Her sub -diagnosis was child sexual abuse.

Lafourche Parish Sheriff' s Office Juvenile Division Detective Cory Brooks

was the lead detective in the investigation of the victim' s injuries. He spoke to the

victim' s aunt and grandmother and learned that the victim had been left in the care of

the aunt while the victim' s grandmother was working on a boat for fifteen days. The

1 The victim is referenced herein only by her initials. See La. R.S. 46: 1844( W).

2

victim' s aunt indicated that the defendant was her boyfriend. She also stated that on

the night before the victim' s injuries were discovered, the defendant stayed up late

with a friend playing cards at her house. The defendant subsequently confessed that

after changing the victim' s diaper in the night, he " stuck his finger inside of [the

victim' s] vagina" and " stuck his dick inside of [the victim]."

UNCONSTITUTIONALLY EXCESSIVE SENTENCE

In his sole assignment of error, the defendant contends his sentence, although

statutorily mandated, was constitutionally excessive under the facts of this case.

According to the defendant, his sentence makes no meaningful contribution to

acceptable goals of punishment and is nothing more than a purposeless and needless

imposition of pain and suffering. He argues that the trial court failed to give adequate

consideration to the mitigating circumstances that he had no prior felony convictions,

that he was twenty-four years old at the time of the offense, that he confessed to the

crime, and that he showed remorse. Lastly, citing jurisprudence concerning juvenile

offenders, the defendant argues that this matter should be remanded to the trial court

for resentencing with the possibility of parole.

Article I, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits the imposition of

excessive punishment. Although a sentence may be within statutory limits, it may

violate a defendant' s constitutional right against excessive punishment and is subject

to appellate review. Generally, a sentence is considered excessive if it is grossly

disproportionate to the severity of the crime or is nothing more than the purposeless

and needless imposition of pain and suffering. A sentence is considered grossly

disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the

harm caused to society, it is so disproportionate as to shock one' s sense of justice.

State v. Flowers, 2016- 0130 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 19/ 16), 204 So. 3d 271, 285, writ

denied, 2016- 1871 ( La. 9/ 6/ 17), 224 So.3d 983.

3

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). The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment

at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

Courts are charged with applying statutorily -mandated punishment unless it is

unconstitutional.
State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276, 1278 ( La. 1993). Indeed, it is

incumbent on the defendant to rebut the presumption that a mandatory minimum

sentence is constitutional by " clearly and convincingly" showing that:

he] is exceptional, which in this context means that because of unusual
circumstances this defendant is a victim of the legislature' s failure to
assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the
offender, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstances of the case.

State v. Johnson, 97- 1906 ( La. 3/ 4/ 98), 709 So.2d 672, 676 ( citation omitted);

Flowers, 204 So. 3d at 285- 86 ( quotations omitted).

At sentencing, the court found, " based upon the heinous offense that was

described to the jury and the [ c] ourt in this matter, that any lesser sentence would

deprecate the seriousness of the offense and impose a great and extreme threat to the

citizens of the State of Louisiana."

After the sentence was imposed, defense counsel moved for reconsideration of

sentence,
arguing that the sentence was unconstitutionally excessive because the

defendant was twenty- four years old at the time of the offense, he had no prior felony

convictions, he was the father of three children, and he was employed. The trial

court denied the motion to reconsider sentence. The court recalled " in detail" the

testimony presented at trial and noted it was not in a position to " second guess" the

finding of the unanimous jury. The court stated, in imposing sentence, it had

commented on the heinousness of the offense. The court did not find that the penalty

was grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime so as to shock the sense of

justice. To the contrary, the court found that life imprisonment was clearly justifiable

0

based upon the shocking nature of the offense, " not only, to punish the defendant;

but, also,
to protect society." The court noted there was no excuse and no

conceivable defense to " the actions which the [ c] ourt heard testimony regarding in

the] matter." Additionally, the court found any recent jurisprudence from the United

States Supreme Court regarding life sentences for juvenile offenders distinguishable

because the defendant was twenty-four years old.

The defendant did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was

exceptional such that the mandatory life sentence was not meaningfully tailored to

his culpability, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstances of the case. See

Johnson, 709 So. 2d at 676; Flowers, 204 So. 3d at 286. Accordingly, there was no

reason for the trial court to deviate from the provisions of La. R.S. 14: 42( D)( 1) in

sentencing him. The sentence imposed was not grossly disproportionate to the

severity of the offense and, therefore, was not unconstitutionally excessive.

Additionally, the trial court correctly distinguished the cases cited by the

defendant in support of sentencing with parole. In Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48,

75, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 2030, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 ( 2010), the United States Supreme Court

held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits life -without -parole sentences for juvenile

nonhomicide offenders unless they are given some meaningful opportunity to obtain

release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. In Miller v. Alabama,

567 U.S. 460, 4701 132 S. Ct. 24555 2464, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 ( 2012), the United States

Supreme Court held that mandatory life -without -parole sentences for juveniles

violate the Eighth Amendment.2 As noted by the trial court, the defendant was not a

juvenile at the time of the offense.

This assignment of error is without merit.

CONCLUSION

2 See also La. Code Crim. art. 878. 1 ( hearing to determine parole eligibility for certain juvenile
offenders).

5

For the above reasons, the defendant' s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.