State Of Louisiana v. Shaderick D. Jones

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2023 KA 0830

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

SHADERICK D. JONES

DATE OF JUDGMENT: APR 17 2024

ON APPEAL FROM THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF WEST BATON ROUGE, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NUMBER 210378, DIVISION B

HONORABLE TONYA S. LURRY, JUDGE

Antonio M. " Tony„ Clayton Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Terri Russo Lacy
Assistant District Attorney
Port Allen, Louisiana

Lieu T. Vo Clark Counsel for Defendant -Appellant
Mandeville, Louisiana Shaderick D. Jones

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ.

Disposition: CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED.

CHUTZ, J.

The defendant, Shaderick D. Jones, was charged by amended bill of

information with twenty-four counts of possession of pornography involving

juveniles under the age of thirteen, violations of La. R. S. 14: 81. 1( A)( 1), ( E)( 1)( a),

and ( E)( 5)( a), and fifty-five counts of sexual abuse of an animal, violations of La.

R.S. 14: 89. 3( A)(7) and ( D)( 1)( a). The defendant entered a plea of not guilty and,

following a jury trial, was found guilty as charged on all counts. The trial court

sentenced the defendant to fifteen years at hard labor without benefit of parole,

probation, or suspension of sentence on each of the twenty-four counts ofpossession

ofpornography involving j uveniles; the trial court ordered the sentences for eighteen

of these counts to run concurrently and the sentences for six of these counts to run

consecutively, for total consecutive sentences of ninety years on these counts. As to

the fifty-five counts of sexual abuse of an animal, the trial court sentenced the

defendant to five years at hard labor on each count; the trial court ordered fifty-three
of these counts to run concurrent to one another and to all other sentences, with the

remaining two counts to run consecutive to each other and to all other sentences, for

total consecutive sentences of ten years on these counts. The combined consecutive

sentences for all counts totaled one hundred years. The trial court denied the

defendant' s motion to reconsider sentence. On appeal, the defendant assigns error

to the trial court' s denial of his motion to reconsider sentence and to the

excessiveness of his sentences. For the following reasons, we affirm his convictions

and sentences.

FACTS

The defendant, a deputy with the lberville Parish Sheriff' s Office, lived with

his girlfriend, Mariah Kinchen, in Port Allen, Louisiana. On June 7, 2019, Ms.

Kinchen was using the defendant' s tablet when a disturbing message from his ex -

Pa

girlfriend came across the screen. Ms. Kinchen sent the message, which was

originally intended for the defendant, to her friend, who then alerted law

enforcement. Officers obtained a search warrant for the defendant' s residence and,

while executing the warrant, confiscated several of the defendant' s cell phones,

tablets, and other electronic devices. A search of these devices revealed numerous

illegal pornographic images downloaded by the defendant between November of

2016 and January of 2018. The defendant was arrested and ultimately charged with

twenty-four counts of pornography involving juveniles and fifty-five counts of
sexual abuse of an animal.

DISCUSSION

In combined assignments of error, the defendant argues his consecutive

sentences, which total one hundred years, are unconstitutionally excessive, and the

trial court erred in denying his motion to reconsider sentence.

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 20

of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of cruel or excessive

punishment. A sentence within statutory limits may still be considered excessive if

it is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense, or is nothing more

than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. A sentence is grossly

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

harm done to society, the sentence shocks the sense ofjustice. State v. Anderson,

2022- 0587 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 22/ 22), 357 So.3d 845, 852, writ denied, 2023-

00352 ( La. 916123), 369 So.3d 1267.

The trial court has great discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory

limits, and such a sentence will not be set aside as excessive in the absence of an

abuse of discretion. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 894. 1 sets forth

the factors for the trial court to consider when imposing a sentence. While the entire

checklist of Article 894. 1 need not be recited, the record must reflect the trial court

K

adequately considered the criteria. The trial judge should review the defendant' s

personal history, his prior criminal record, the seriousness of the offense, the

likelihood that he will commit another crime, and his potential for rehabilitation

through correctional services other than confinement. Anderson, 357 So. 3d at 852.

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 of the terms be served consecutively. La. Code Crim. P. art. 883. Thus,

Article 883 specifically excludes from its scope sentences that the court expressly

directs to be served consecutively. A trial judge retains discretion to impose

consecutive penalties based on the offender' s past criminality, the violence in the

charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.

Although the imposition of consecutive sentences requires particular justification

when the crimes arise from a single course of conduct, consecutive sentences are not

necessarily excessive. The failure to articulate specific reasons for imposing

consecutive sentences does not require remand if the record provides an adequate

factual basis to support the consecutive sentences. State v, Alexander, 2021- 1346

La. App. 1st Cir. 7113122), 344 So.3d 705, 725- 26, writ denied, 2022- 01262 ( La.

1118123), 373 So.3d 62. On appellate review, the relevant question is whether the

trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence

might have been more appropriate. Anderson, 357 So.3d at 852.

Whoever commits the crime ofpossession ofpornography involving juveniles

when the victim is under the age ofthirteen years shall be punished by imprisonment

at hard labor for not less than ten years nor more than forty years, without benefit of

parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. La. R.S. 14: 81. 1( E)( 1)( a) & ( E)( 5)( a).

The defendant was found guilty of twenty- four counts of possession of pornography

involving juveniles under the age of thirteen. For each count, he faced a sentencing

4

range of ten to forty years imprisonment. Whoever commits the crime of sexual

abuse of an animal shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than

five years. La. R.S. 14: 89. 3( D)( 1)( a). The defendant was found guilty of fifty-five

counts of sexual abuse of an animal. For each count, he faced up to five years

imprisonment.

Prior to sentencing the defendant, the trial court reviewed the presentence

investigation report prepared in this case, noting that the defendant was a first-time

offender with no prior criminal history. However, the trial court also noted that the

defendant' s status as a law enforcement officer, combined with the number of

offenses and the nature of the crimes of which he was convicted, weighed against

leniency. With these considerations in mind, the trial court sentenced the defendant

to consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling one hundred years. In denying the

defendant' s motion to reconsider sentence, the trial court reiterated its rationale,

stating:

I took everything into consideration before I sentenced [ the
defendant]. Everything that the jury saw, all of the evidence, the counts
against him, the nature of the crimes, the victims, the number of counts,
and the lack of his criminal history, and I would not be telling the truth
if I said that I didn' t take into consideration also that he was a police
officer ... I looked at the factors that I' m supposed to consider in
sentencing, and I came up with an amount of time that I felt was
sufficient for the crime. This crime is something that is probably one
of the most offensive crimes that we have in our society, and that does
weigh on the sentencing. I understand that it' s a lot of time, but,
again, it' s a very offensive crime, and it was .. , a very high number of
counts.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court' s sentences nor its denial of

the defendant' s motion to reconsider sentence. The trial court dutifully considered

the sentencing factors set forth in Article 894. 1 before arriving at its decision.

Moreover, we note the defendant faced a sentencing range of ten to forty years on

each of the twenty- four counts of possession of pornography involving juveniles.

5

Accordingly, the trial court' s imposition of fifteen years imprisonment on each count

was at the low end of the sentencing range and cannot be said to be excessive.

Although the defendant argues that consecutive sentences are inappropriate

where the convictions arise out of a single course of criminal conduct, we disagree

with the defendant' s characterization of these charges. The evidence produced at

trial indicated that the images on the defendant' s phones, which form the basis for

the seventy-nine counts against him, were diligently collected and downloaded over

the course of several years. The images extracted from one cell phone were

downloaded between November and December of 2016, and the images extracted

from a second cell phone were downloaded between August of 2017 and January of

2018. This was not a single act in which the defendant, at one time, accessed

seventy- nine illegal pornographic images. Rather, the defendant committed

seventy-nine discrete and uniquely horrifying crimes, with untold numbers of

victims. See State v. Fussell, 2006- 2595 ( La. 1116108), 974 So.2d 1223, 1235 ( The

statute governing offense of intentional possession of pornography involving

juveniles allows a separate conviction on a separate count for each child, in each

sexual performance, captured in any photographs, films, videotapes, or other visual

reproductions that a defendant intentionally possesses.).

The defendant' s crimes are made all the more egregious by the fact that he

was a deputy with the Iberville Parish Sheriffs Office when he committed them. As

a law enforcement officer, he had a duty to protect society' s most vulnerable. It is

difficult to conceive of an act of betrayal more heinous than that perpetrated by the

defendant upon a community he was sworn to serve. See State v. Mischler, 2018-

1352 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 31/ 19), So.3d , 2019 WL 2334219, * 13, writs

deni 2019- 01100, 2019- 01248 ( La. 2126/ 20), 347 So.3d 875 and 880; see also

State v. Yetman, 54,883 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 1/ 11/ 23), 354 So. 3d 1262, 1268.

6

As one ofthe worst offenders whose conduct constituted the worst ofoffenses,

the defendant does not show, nor do we find, that the trial court abused its discretion

in sentencing him to consecutive sentences totaling one hundred years

imprisonment. These combined assignments of error are without merit.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED.

7