State Of Louisiana v. Jeremy Paul Sims

1 1 i' • N!

Cm 11,11y V i i .,.

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2024 KA 0569

LM STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JEREMY SIMS

Judgment Rendered.-
endered. DEC 13 2024

Appealed from the
17th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Lafourche
State of Louisiana
Case No. 618377, Division D

The Honorable Christopher J. Boudreaux, Judge Presiding

Gwendolyn K. Brown Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Jeremy Sims

Kristine Russell Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Joseph S. Soignet
Allie Fournet
Assistant District Attorneys
Thibodaux, Louisiana

BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ.

THERIOT, J.

The defendant, Jeremy Paul Sims, was charged by bill of information with

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of La. R.S. 14: 95. 1( A)

Count 1); possession of a schedule II controlled dangerous substance in violation

of La. R.S. 40: 967( C) ( Count 2); possession of a weapon while committing a crime

of violence in violation of La. R. S. 14: 95( E) ( Count 3); and domestic abuse

aggravated assault in violation of La. R.S. 14: 37. 7 ( Count 4), I The defendant was

arraigned on the charges, pled not guilty on all counts, and waived his right to a

jury trial. The case proceeded to a bench trial on count one, and the trial court

found the defendant guilty as charged.2 The defendant filed a motion for new trial

and a motion for post -verdict judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied.

Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced him to twenty years at hard labor to
3
be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The

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

now appeals, asserting two assignments of error. For the reasons that follow, we

affirm the conviction.

FACTS

On March 16, 2023, Lieutenant Jason Terry and Deputy Jordy Toups with

the Lafourche Parish Sheriffs Office responded to a call for assistance regarding a

domestic disturbance at Tonya Naquin' s residence in Houma, Louisiana. While

outside the residence, Lt. Terry and Deputy Toups heard a woman call out for help.

The officers entered the residence to investigate and proceeded to a bedroom

where they observed Ms. Naquin lying on a bed and the defendant kneeling,

1 On count one, the State amended the bill of information to change the date of the prior felony
conviction for possession of heroin from April 10, 2020 to September 10, 2020.

2 On the morning of trial, the State nolle prossed counts two, three, and four.

3 The trial court did not designate the underlying conviction as a crime of violence. See La. R.S.
14: 95. 1( D)

2

shirtless, on the floor beside her.' Lt. Terry instructed Ms. Naquin to follow him

out of the room, while Deputy Toups remained with the defendant. When the

defendant stood up, as instructed, Deputy Toups observed a firearm next to him on

a dresser. When Deputy Toups cleared the weapon, he observed a live round

inside the 9 -millimeter handgun.

A check of the defendant' s criminal history revealed he had a prior felony

conviction. After being advised of his Miranda rights,' the defendant advised

Deputy Toups that he and Ms. Naquin " only" had a verbal altercation. The

defendant admitted that he was a convicted felon, but denied ownership of the

firearm. The defendant was placed under arrest.' At trial, Agent Jason Naquin, a

probation officer with the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections,

testified that he supervised the defendant while he was on felony probation in

Terrebonne Parish. Agent Naquin testified that the defendant was placed on

probation following his September 10, 2020, conviction for possession of heroin.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

In his first assignment of error, the defendant argues the trial court erred in

imposing an excessive sentence. He specifically alleges the trial court erred by

failing to adequately consider the sentencing factors set forth in Article 894. 1. In

his second assignment of error, the defendant argues the trial court erred by

denying his motion to reconsider sentence. In its brief, the State argues the issues

raised by the defendant regarding his twenty-year sentence are moot because the

trial court adjudicated the defendant a habitual offender, vacated the prior sentence,

4 Lt. Terry and Deputy Toups both testified that the defendant retrieved a shirt from a dresser
inside the bedroom before being escorted from the premises. In addition, Lt. Terry observed a
wallet and the defendant' s work boots, which led him to believe the defendant lived in the
residence.

5 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ( 1966).

6 Lt. Terry testified that he arrested the defendant because he was the aggressor in the domestic
disturbance.

3

and resentenced him under La. R.S. 15: 529. 1 to twenty-five years at hard labor

without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

In the instant case, the defendant was sentenced on April 11, 2024. A

review of the record reflects that at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the

trial court noted the defendant had a pending habitual offender bill of information

and set a hearing on the matter. The defendant filed a motion for appeal on April

16, 2024, which was granted. The instant appeal was lodged with this court on

June 24, 2024. As contended by the State, on May 16, 2024, a hearing was held
on the habitual offender bill. Following the introduction of evidence and

argument, the defendant was adjudicated a habitual offender. The trial court

vacated the sentence on the underlying conviction and resentenced the defendant to

twenty-five years imprisonment at hard labor, without benefit of probation, parole,

or suspension of sentence.

Given the foregoing, we pretermit discussion of the defendant' s assignments

of error which concern his original sentence that has been vacated because they are
moot.'
We further pretermit discussion of the sentencing errors found during an
error patent review of the appellate record.' Any claims that the defendant might

have regarding his habitual offender sentence must be addressed in a separate

appeal. State v. White, 2018- 1312 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 12/ 19), 276 So. 3d 166,

174, writ denied, 2019- 00805 ( La. 9/ 24/ 19), 278 So. 3d 977.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED.

7 As noted, the defendant' s appeal was granted prior to the habitual offender hearing and
adjudication. This court exercised its authority under La. Code Crim. P. art. 914. 1( D) to
designate additional portions of the proceedings below before concluding that the assignments of
error are moot. See State v. Gilbert, 99- 2338 ( La. 2/ 4/ 00), 758 So. 2d 779, 780 (pet- curiam).

8 In sentencing the defendant, the trial court failed to impose the mandatory fine of not less than
one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars and failed to conduct a hearing or
provide written reasons pursuant to La. Code Crim. P. art. 875. 1 for its decision not to impose a
fine. See La. R.S. 14: 95. 1( B).

0