State of Louisiana v. Bobby Ray Sawyer

Judgment rendered May 20, 2020.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 53,506-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

BOBBY RAY SAWYER Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
Third Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Union, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 2017F54717

Honorable Bruce Edward Hampton, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Mary Constance Hanes

JOHN FITZGERALD BELTON Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

ERIC MICHAEL MAHAFFEY
CLIFFORD ROYCE STRIDER, III
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before WILLIAMS, PITMAN, and STONE, JJ.

STONE, J.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Bobby Ray Sawyer (“Sawyer”),

was convicted of attempted second degree murder. He was sentenced to 35

years of incarceration at hard labor without benefits, and now appeals. For

the following reasons, Sawyer’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 22, 2017, Sawyer was charged with attempted second

degree murder of Amanda Jesslink (“Ms. Jesslink”). The offense occurred

on June 23, 2017. A trial was held July 31-August 1, 2019. The state called

three witnesses at trial: (1) Ms. Jesslink, the victim; (2) Deputy Huey P.

Middleton, Jr., (“Dep. Middleton”) of the Union Parish Sheriff’s Office

(“UPSO”), the detective who worked the case; and (3) Kenneth Armstrong

(“Mr. Armstrong”), a neighbor who overheard the incident. The trial

testimony is summarized in the following.

Ms. Jesslink’s testimony

Ms. Jesslink lives at 520 Albert Smith Road, Farmerville, Louisiana.

Sawyer is her brother. She identified him in court as the defendant. She

went outside on June 23, 2017, and saw that the garden hose was stretched

across her driveway towards the nearby tool shed that Sawyer used as his

residence.1

Ms. Jesslink, Sawyer, and their brother, Steffon Sawyer (“Steffon”)

share a driveway. Ms. Jesslink testified that it is only about 20 feet between

her residence and Sawyer’s shed. On the date of the offense, Steffon, who

1
Ms. Jesslink stated that there were trailers on the property that Sawyer could
have lived in, but Sawyer built a room inside the tool shed, and it was his choice to live
there.

also lived next door to Ms. Jesslink, was going to mow her yard, and the

garden hose was in the way, stretched across the driveway toward Sawyer’s

shed.2

Ms. Jesslink went to Sawyer’s residence and “knocked on the side of

the building to get his attention,” and asked him why he kept leaving the

hose laying across the yard. She stated that any time she wanted to speak

with Sawyer, she would knock on the side of his residence, and he would

come outside and see what she wanted; that was how the two communicated.

She testified that after she knocked on his building, Sawyer began

“hollering” at her, screaming and cursing for her to “get out of my house,”

and “get off my hill.” Ms. Jesslink argued back at him.

During the argument, Sawyer was standing near a ladder, and Ms.

Jesslink was pulling the hose back towards her house; thus, her back was

turned toward Sawyer for much of the argument. While she and Sawyer

were arguing, she was standing in the sun and Sawyer was standing in the

shade, and she did not notice anything in his hands at the time. Ms. Jesslink

testified that while they were arguing, Sawyer said, “I got something for

you.” At that point she turned around and could see that Sawyer was pulling

at something. She described what Sawyer was pulling at as a reddish color

blanket or cloth. She continued to watch what Sawyer was pulling at, and

she saw him pull out a gun and point right at her face. Ms. Jesslink testified

that the gun was a hunting gun or rifle, and she could see the barrel pointed

at her. Sawyer had the gun’s stock at his shoulder and had the muzzle

pointed at her face; at that point, Sawyer was no longer yelling at her, but he

2
Ms. Jesslink had pulled in the hose the preceding day, but on the date of the
offense, the hose was again stretched back out across the driveway.
2

was “concentrating.” Upon seeing this, Ms. Jesslink dropped to the ground

in an evasive maneuver; she heard the gun go off at the same time that she

dropped to the ground. She stated that Sawyer was about 40 feet from her

when he fired the shot. She thought she had been hit because she “could feel

it…could feel the sound of it.”

Ms. Jesslink got on her feet and ran into her house. When asked if she

heard the bullet “whiz by,” she stated, “I can’t even remember if I did or not,

I just know I felt it…I was so terrified at that time.” Ms. Jesslink testified

that the only reason she did not get shot was because she dove for the

ground.

Ms. Jesslink testified that she then called her neighbor and family

friend, Mr. Armstrong, because he lived nearby, and she was afraid Sawyer

was going to come into the house and shoot her. She testified that she did

not own a weapon, and she wanted someone there. Ms. Jesslink testified

that after speaking with Mr. Armstrong she called 9-1-1 and stayed on the

phone with 9-1-1, standing near her front door with the door locked, until the

police arrived. The 9-1-1 call was played in court. The audio of the call

confirmed Ms. Jesslink’s testimony regarding the argument with Sawyer and

him shooting at her. In the call, a very excited and upset Ms. Jesslink stated

several times that Sawyer pointed a rifle at her and shot it at her.

Ms. Jesslink affirmed that it was about 25 minutes between when the

shot was fired and the police arrived, and about 20 minutes between when

she called 911 and the police arrived. She did not see Sawyer during that

time, and she did not know what he was doing. She stated that she could not

see Sawyer’s residence from inside her house, but she was watching the

3

other side of her fence to see if Sawyer came near her house because she was

concerned that Sawyer was going to come and shoot her.

On cross-examination, Ms. Jesslink stated that Sawyer’s aiming the

gun at her, her dropping to the ground, and his shooting at her all happened

at once. Her testimony indicated that she did not see Sawyer fire the weapon

because she was diving to the ground at the moment of the shot. She

admitted that Sawyer only fired one shot, and did not follow her and

continue to shoot at her, but instead turned around and went back into his

shed.

Ms. Jesslink stated that she had seen Sawyer shooting a firearm for

target practice on his property, that he was experienced with weapons, and

she had seen him with a gun prior to the date of the offense, but did not

know what gun it was. She did not see Mr. Armstrong until later, after the

police arrived, and she did not speak with him. Ms. Jesslink testified that, if

Sawyer is taking care of himself, his mobility is “good.” However, she also

stated that Sawyer did not take care of himself. As an example of his

mobility, she reported that had seen him walking home from half a mile

down the road and offered him a ride; he declined because he preferred

walking.

Deputy Middleton’s testimony

Dep. Middleton was the UPSO detective who responded to the 9-1-1

call. On June 23, 2017, at approximately 1:30 p.m., he heard a call on his

radio that there was a complaint of shots fired, that someone was shooting at

another person. The call came from a residence at 520 Albert Smith Road,

in Union Parish. Dep. Middleton arrived on the scene around 1:45 p.m., and

knocked on the door of the residence. Ms. Jesslink answered, and she was
4

upset, crying, and visibly shaking. For safety, Dep. Middleton then located

Sawyer, who was in his shed. Dep. Middleton identified Sawyer in court.

Dep. Middleton described Sawyer’s residence as a “small storage

building,” with one entry. An aerial photograph admitted into evidence

showed that Ms. Jesslink’s house is close to Sawyer’s shed, and is on the

same or adjacent property. Dep. Middleton stated that there was trash piled

up around the shed, and the photograph of the outside of the front entry to

the shed corroborated that testimony. The photograph depicts a piece of

material resting on some buckets and what appears to be a garbage can or

barrel. Dep. Middleton described the material in his testimony as a red

poncho. Dep. Middleton testified that the tail end of a gun case could be

seen in the photograph, and that the poncho and the gun case could be seen

when he walked up to Sawyer’s residence. Dep. Middleton identified the

gun case again in another photograph. Also, Dep. Middleton stated that Ms.

Jesslink told him about the poncho and the gun case when he first spoke to

her.

Dep. Middleton identified one photograph showing three live rounds

of British 303 caliber ammunition, and stated that the ammunition was lying

around the red poncho. Inside the gun case, which was not latched when he

found it, Dep. Middleton found a box of 12 live rounds of British 303

ammunition. Dep. Middleton stated that the British 303 was initially made

for military use, and it made a distinct sound when fired.

Dep. Middleton stated that when a firearm is discharged, gunpowder

residue is emitted three to five feet from the muzzle of the weapon, and

potentially out of the chamber. He also stated that the person being shot at

can feel the percussion of the bullet when it passes him or her. Dep.
5

Middleton also explained that if Sawyer had fired two shots, there would

have been a shell casing ejected from the rifle, but agreed that, if only one

shot was fired, a shell casing would not necessarily have been

contemporaneously ejected from the rifle.3

Dep. Middleton and other officers unsuccessfully searched for a shell

casing at the scene. He explained that this was difficult because of all of the

debris around the house and yard. Also, he was warned by a neighbor that

Sawyer had placed “booby traps” around the property.4

After an initial search, due to the possible presence of “booby traps,”

he and the other officers present decided to cease searching. Dep. Middleton

pointed out that several minutes had passed between when the shots were

fired and when officers arrived on the scene, enough time for Sawyer to hide

the firearm. Also, there was a cesspool on the property, but it was not

searched. Neither were the woods or the pasture near Sawyer’s residence.

Dep. Middleton later returned to the property with a search warrant,

and searched inside Sawyer’s shed, but was unable to find anything. The

investigation did not locate where the bullet had struck, and no projectile

was recovered.

3
Dep. Middleton testified that the British 303 is a “bolt action rifle,” which
requires that ammunition be loaded into a magazine attached to the bottom of the rifle;
the rounds are then loaded into the rifle by means of sliding the bolt. The bolt is then
latched down, locking it into place, and then the trigger can be pulled to fire the rifle, at
which point the bullet comes out along with percussion and gunshot residue. In order to
get another bullet into the chamber of the rifle, the bolt must be “unlocked” and the
process repeated, at which point the spent casing, or “hull,” from the first round fired
would be ejected from the gun.
4
Dep. Middleton determined that the shot was fired approximately 15 yards from
Sawyer’s front door. Ms. Jesslink had a cyclone fence around her house. The state
admitted several photographs depicting the outside of Sawyer’s residence abutting Ms.
Jesslink’s fence. The photographs depict a lot of debris around Sawyer’s residence and a
water hose near the fence surrounding Ms. Jesslink’s residence.

6

Dep. Middleton conducted a presumptive gunshot residue test on

Sawyer’s right hand, right shoulder and the right side of Sawyer’s face. The

gunshot residue test was presumptive and not definitive, meaning other

substances could have read as positive other than gunshot residue. The test

registered as presumptively positive for gunshot residue on all three places

tested. Dep. Middleton admitted that it was possible for a person to get

gunshot residue on their person by being in the area when someone else fired

a weapon.

On cross-examination, Dep. Middleton testified that it was

approximately 15 minutes between when he received the call of shots fired

to when he arrived at Ms. Jesslink’s residence. He was one of the first

officers on the scene, and that Ms. Jesslink informed him that she had an

argument with Sawyer over the garden hose, and that the garden hose had

been a source of previous arguments between Ms. Jesslink and Sawyer. The

account that Ms. Jesslink gave Dep. Middleton when he arrived on the scene

was consistent with her testimony at trial.

Dep. Middleton testified that the ammunition found on Sawyer’s

property could only be fired by a British Lee-Enfield 303 rifle, and that he

was unaware of any other brand of firearm that fired that ammunition. Dep.

Middleton testified that the 303 Lee-Enfield has a fairly distinctive shape

because of the forward magazine from the trigger, and that no comparisons

were made to see if that type of weapon would fit in the gun case found at

the scene.

Kenneth Armstrong’s testimony

Mr. Armstrong is retired and lives at 492 Albert Smith Road, in Union

Parish. He knows both Sawyer and Ms. Jesslink; at the time of trial, he had
7

known Sawyer for about 40 years. Mr. Armstrong testified that he has

arthritis and uses a cane when he walks, and has a workshop behind his

residence. The workshop is about 50 yards from Ms. Jesslink’s house.

Mr. Armstrong was in his workshop cleaning mechanical parts with

gasoline around 1:00 p.m. on the date of the offense. At that point, he heard

Sawyer hollering; Sawyer’s voice was coming from the direction of Ms.

Jesslink’s house and Sawyer's shed. Roughly a minute or two after Sawyer

stopped hollering, Mr. Armstrong heard the shot of the high-powered rifle

coming from the same direction as Sawyer's hollering a moment earlier.

About two minutes after the shot, Mr. Armstrong got a call from Ms.

Jesslink. He testified that she sounded excited and scared, and that she was

crying. Mr. Armstrong stated that Ms. Jesslink told him Sawyer had just

shot at her and she asked, in so many words, that Mr. Armstrong come and

protect her.

Mr. Armstrong walked to his house, got his pistol and holster, went

out the front door and got on his four-wheeler, and just as he got to the road

(about 20 minutes after Ms. Jesslink’s call), the police arrived.

It was not typical for Mr. Armstrong to take his gun when visiting

with Ms. Jesslink or Saywer, but he did so that day, “Cause he had done

fired at her.” He testified that the path he took to get on his four-wheeler

was about one hundred feet, but that he moved slower than most people due

to his mobility limitations. Mr. Armstrong stated that, upon seeing the

police, he backed his four-wheeler up into his yard, and subsequently spoke

to police and told them about hearing Sawyer yelling and the gunshot.

Mr. Armstrong unequivocally described the gunshot as that of a high-

powered rifle, and stated that he hunts and owns several guns, including a
8

Remington 303 rifle, and that he can tell the difference between the sound

from a high-powered rifle and other types of firearms. Upon hearing the

shot, Mr. Armstrong thought Sawyer shot his British 303, which Mr.

Armstrong described as “an old military style gun [that had] been

converted…to a hunting gun.”

Mr. Armstrong testified that Sawyer brought the British 303 to his

house several years prior to have Mr. Armstrong fix the sight on it.5 Sawyer

brought the gun to him around October 2016, before hunting season,

claiming the gun shot to the left of target. Mr. Armstrong stated that the gun

was not pulling to the left when he fired it, but, rather, it was Sawyer who

was not shooting straight. The state produced a photograph of a 303 British

bolt action rifle, and Mr. Armstrong affirmed that it was the same type of

gun Sawyer had him shoot in October 2016, but that Sawyer’s gun had a

different sight on it.

On cross-examination, Mr. Armstrong stated that he always got along

with Sawyer, and he called Ms. Jesslink a “friend.” Mr. Armstrong stated

that on the day of the offense, he only heard one person, Sawyer, yelling

before he heard the shot. He also stated that it was not unusual to hear

gunfire from hunting or target practice in that area. He stated, “All my

neighbors hunt. They practice all the time.” However, he had not heard any

other shots on the date of the offense prior to the subject shot.

Mr. Armstrong informed police that there were “booby traps” at

Sawyer’s property. He elaborated that Sawyer had previously brought a

steel trap to his house and used his welding machine in order to weld “little

5
Mr. Armstrong described Sawyer’s gun to police as a 303 bolt action rifle, with
a rusted blue finish and a dark walnut stock.

9

spikes” onto the trap in hopes of catching someone who had been stealing

from his yard.

On August 1, 2019, a unanimous jury found Sawyer guilty of

attempted second degree murder. Sawyer filed motions for post-verdict

judgment of acquittal and for new trial. On August 27, 2019, the trial court

denied both motions.

Sawyer now appeals. He makes the following assignments of error:

(1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted

second degree murder because it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that he had specific intent to kill; and (2) alternatively, if he did have specific

intent to kill, the court should reduce his conviction to attempted

manslaughter because the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that

he acted in sudden heat of passion caused by Ms. Jesslink’s provoking him.

DISCUSSION

Sawyer’s sole assignment of error is that the evidence is insufficient

to support his conviction for attempted second degree murder. In support,

Sawyer argues that he lacked the requisite specific intent to kill Ms. Jesslink,

even if he fired one shot in her direction. Sawyer argues that if he did

possess the requisite specific intent, he is guilty, at most, of attempted

manslaughter. However, Sawyer argues, because he had no specific intent

to kill his sister, the only possible responsive verdict is aggravated assault

with a firearm. Accordingly, Sawyer asks this Court to reverse his

conviction or reduce it to aggravated assault with a firearm.

Alternatively, Sawyer asks this Court to modify the verdict pursuant

to La. C. Cr. P. art. 821(E), and render a judgment of attempted

manslaughter.
10

Law

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. Lynn, 53,189 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/15/20),

288 So. 3d 881. 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. 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.

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. Dale, 50,195 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/18/15), 180 So. 3d 528, writ

denied, 15-2291 (La. 4/4/16), 190 So. 3d 1203. A reviewing court affords

great deference to a trial court’s decision to accept or reject the testimony of

a witness in whole or in part. State v. Steines, supra.

The Jackson standard is applicable in cases involving both direct and

circumstantial evidence. An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of the

evidence in such cases must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by

viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. To

sustain a conviction, the facts established by the evidence must be sufficient

for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant

11

was guilty of every essential element of the crime. State v. Sutton, 436 So.

2d 471 (La. 1983); State v. Lynn, supra; State v. Steines, supra.

Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and

circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred

according to reason and common experience. State v. Mingo, 51,647 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 9/27/17), 244 So. 3d 629, writ denied, 17-1894 (La. 6/1/18), 243

So. 3d 1064.

To sustain a conviction for attempted second degree murder, the state

must prove that the defendant: (1) intended to kill the victim; and (2)

committed an overt act tending toward the accomplishment of the victim’s

death. La. R.S. 14:27; La. R.S. 14:30.1. Although the statute for the

completed crime of second degree murder allows for a conviction based on

“specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm,” La. R.S. 14:30.1,

attempted second degree murder requires specific intent to kill. State v.

Harris, 52,541 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/27/19), 266 So. 3d 953, 956–57, writ

denied, 19-611 (La. 9/17/19); State v. Bishop, 01-2548 (La. 1/14/03), 835

So. 2d 434. Proof of specific intent to inflict great bodily harm is

insufficient for a conviction for attempted second degree murder. State v.

Lynn, supra; State v. Lewis, 51,672 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/15/17), 245 So. 3d

233; State v. Patterson, 50,305 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/18/15), 184 So. 3d 739,

writ denied, 15-2333 (La. 3/24/16), 190 So. 3d 1190.

Specific intent is that state of mind which exists when the

circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed

criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act. La. R.S. 14:10(1).

Such state of mind can be formed in an instant. State v. Harris, supra; State

v. Murray, 49,418 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/14/15), 161 So. 3d 918, writ denied,
12

2015-0379 (La. 4/8/16), 191 So. 3d 582. Specific intent may be inferred

from the circumstances surrounding the offense and the conduct of the

defendant. State v. Bishop, supra. The determination of whether the

requisite intent is present is a question for the trier of fact. State v. Lynn,

supra; State v. Harris, supra.

Manslaughter is defined in La. R.S.14:31(A)(1) as:

A homicide which would be murder under either Article
30 (first degree murder) or Article 30.1 (second degree
murder), but the offense is committed in sudden passion or
heat of blood immediately caused by provocation
sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control
and cool reflection. Provocation shall not reduce a
homicide to manslaughter if the jury finds that the
offender’s blood had actually cooled, or that an average
person’s blood would have cooled, at the time the offense
was committed.

Manslaughter as so defined is a lesser included offense of second

degree murder. State v. Lombard, 486 So. 2d 106 (La. 1986). La. C. Cr. P.

art. 821(E) provides:

If the appellate court finds that the evidence, viewed in the
light most favorable to the State, supports only a
conviction of a lesser included responsive offense, the
appellate court, in lieu of granting a post judgment verdict
of acquittal, may modify the verdict and render judgment
of conviction on the lesser included responsive offense.

In Lombard, supra, the Louisiana Supreme Court reduced the defendant’s

conviction for second degree murder to manslaughter under La. R.S.14:

31(A)(1). Lombard fatally stabbed a person who was in the act of violently

attacking him, i.e., had just punched him and slammed him into a railing,

and had him in a chokehold with one of his arms pinned behind his back at

the time of the stabbing. In so holding, the court stated that there was a clear

preponderance of the evidence establishing the elements of manslaughter

under La. R.S.14:31(A)(1).
13

In State v. Arabie, 496 So. 2d 554 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1986), the trial

judge reduced the defendant’s conviction to manslaughter pursuant to La.

R.S. 14: 31(A)(1) and La. C. Cr. P. art. 821. The First Circuit, in reversing

the trial court and reinstating the second degree murder conviction, framed

its analysis thusly:

In reviewing the trial court’s modification of the instant
jury verdict, this court must determine whether or not a
rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, could have found that the
mitigatory factors were not established by a preponderance
of the evidence.

Id. at 557.

Analysis

Sufficiency of the evidence

Sawyer’s argument that the evidence did not sufficiently prove that he

specifically intended to kill Ms. Jesslink is meritless. Ms. Jesslink testified

that Sawyer said he “had something for her,” pulled a rifle out, put it to his

shoulder, aimed it at her face and fired at the same time that she ducked

down. Ms. Jesslink also testified that she saw the barrel of the gun aimed at

her and “felt” the shot, meaning she felt the percussion from the gun and the

bullet going by her. Dep. Middleton testified that Sawyer had presumptive

gunshot residue on his face, hand, and shoulder. Dep. Middleton’s

testimony regarding the facts Ms. Jesslink reported to him corroborated her

testimony. Furthermore, Mr. Armstrong corroborated Ms. Jesslink’s

account of the incident, and testified that Sawyer had a British 303 rifle. Law

enforcement seized ammunition for a 303 rifle and a gun case from

Sawyer’s residence. In fact, these were found under the red poncho that Ms.

14

Jesslink described as the place from where Sawyer pulled the rifle he aimed

at her.

The testimony of all three witnesses was consistent, and Ms. Jesslink

unequivocally stated that her brother aimed the rifle directly at her face and

fired all in the same moment.

The evidence is sufficient to support Sawyer’s conviction of

attempted second degree murder. This assignment of error lacks merit.

Attempted manslaughter

Ms. Jesslink’s mere words to Sawyer simply do not rise to the level

necessary to establish provocation under La. R.S. 14:31(A)(1). That is so

because “mere words…no matter how insulting, will not reduce a homicide

from murder to manslaughter.” State v. Mitchell, 39, 202 (La. App. 2 Cir.

12/15/04) 889 So. 2d 1257, writ denied, 05-0132 (La. 4/29/05), 901 So. 2d

1063.

Furthermore, even if mere words theoretically could be sufficient,

Sawyer’s argument would still fail. That is because, viewing the light most

favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could nonetheless have

concluded that the evidence did not preponderate in favor of a finding that

the average person would have been deprived of his self-control and cool

reflection by Ms. Jesslink’s words.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Sawyer’s conviction and sentence are

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

15