State of Louisiana v. Michael S. Couch

Judgment rendered June 30, 2021.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 53,956-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

MICHAEL S. COUCH Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
Fifth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Franklin, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 2018-80F

Honorable John Clay Hamilton, Judge

*****

LAVALLE B. SALOMON, APLC Counsel for Appellant
By: Lavalle B. Salomon

MICHAEL S. COUCH Pro Se

PENNY WISE DOUCIERE Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

CAROLINE HEMPHILL
AMANDA MICHELE WILKINS
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before THOMPSON, ROBINSON, and BODDIE (Pro Tempore), JJ.

THOMPSON, J.

This appeal alleges an excessive sentence arising from the guilty pleas

for the inappropriate sexual groping of several minor students over a period

of eight years by their teacher/principal. The school, the Apostolic

Tabernacle Christian School, served as both the educational and spiritual

home of the minor students and their families, and the defendant used his

unique position of power and authority in the church and school to grope his

minor victims for his personal sexual gratification. The defendant benefited

from a plea agreement, wherein he agreed to plead guilty to five counts of

the significantly lesser charge of indecent behavior with juveniles. The plea

agreement provided the trial court would determine the sentences within the

reduced exposure, which sentences would run concurrently. The trial court

sentenced the defendant to the maximum seven-year sentence on each count

of the lesser charge, to run concurrently, with eighteen months of the hard

labor sentences suspended, and a period of probation to follow upon his

release. The defendant now argues that his sentences are excessive. For the

following reasons, we affirm his sentences.

FACTS

Michael S. Couch (“Couch”) served as a teacher, assistant principal,

and then principal at the Apostolic Tabernacle Christian School during the

years 2008 through 2016. In January of 2018, a teenage student reported to

the Franklin Parish Sheriff’s Office that there had been inappropriate sexual

touching by Couch. After an investigation, the Sheriff’s Office found four

additional young men who likewise reported that Couch had touched them

inappropriately when they were minors while at school under Couch’s

supervision.

On February 26, 2018, Couch was arrested on six counts of prohibited

sexual contact between educator and student and five counts of molestation

of a juvenile. The Franklin Parish Grand Jury indicted Couch on five counts

of molestation of a juvenile, and he was arraigned on all charges on March

13, 2018.

Negotiations between Couch’s counsel and the State resulted in a plea

agreement that significantly reduced the amount of jail time to which Couch

would be exposed. On January 13, 2018, as part of that plea agreement, the

State filed an amended true bill that amended the charges to five counts of

indecent behavior with a juvenile,1 and Couch subsequently pled guilty to all

charges. The plea agreement provided that Couch’s sentences would run

concurrently, with the sentencing to be issued by the trial court after a

presentence investigation (“PSI”).

On September 11, 2020, a sentencing hearing was held by the trial

court. The court noted that it had received the PSI, which contained all of

the necessary information required by Article 875 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. After a detailed recitation of the considerations outlined in

Article 894.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the court’s reasoning

1
La. R.S. 14:81 states:

Indecent behavior with juveniles is the commission of any of the
following acts with the intention of arousing or gratifying the sexual
desires of either person:
(1) Any lewd or lascivious act upon the person or in the presence of
any child under the age of seventeen, where there is an age difference
of greater than two years between the two persons. Lack of
knowledge of the child's age shall not be a defense; or
(2) The transmission, delivery or utterance of any textual, visual,
written, or oral communication depicting lewd or lascivious conduct,
text, words, or images to any person reasonably believed to be under
the age of seventeen and reasonably believed to be at least two years
younger than the offender. It shall not be a defense that the person
who actually receives the transmission is not under the age of
seventeen.
2

and the factors considered, the trial court found that any sentence that does

not include a period of incarceration would severely deprecate the

seriousness of the defendant’s crimes. Couch was sentenced to seven years

at hard labor on each count, with one year and six months of the sentence

suspended, and upon release, the defendant would be placed on three years

active supervised probation. Couch will also be required to register as a sex

offender. The court advised the defendant of his right to appeal, and Couch

now appeals his sentences as excessive.

DISCUSSION

First Assignment of Error: The sentence imposed is excessive and
disproportionate and a needless imposition of pain and suffering, and
therefore a violation of Article I of the Louisiana State Constitution of
1974, as amended.

Second Assignment of Error: The trial court did not adequately
consider the mitigating circumstances presented in this matter.

Third Assignment of Error: The trial court failed to adequately
articulate sufficient reasons which can serve as a factual basis for the
sentence imposed.

Fourth Assignment of Error: The trial court failed to consider
alternative and/or significantly less harsh sentences.

Fifth Assignment of Error: The trial court failed to adequately
articulate reasons for the sentence imposed.

Each of the five assignments of error raised by Couch relates to the

contemplation by the trial court in fashioning a sentence and the nature and

severity of the sentence and, as such, will be addressed in globo.

An appellate court utilizes a two-pronged test in reviewing a sentence

for excessiveness. First, the record must show that the trial court took

cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The trial judge

is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating circumstance so long

as the record reflects that he adequately considered the guidelines of the
3

article. State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983); State v. West, 53,526 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 6/24/20), 297 So. 3d 1081; State v. DeBerry, 50,501 (La. App. 2

Cir. 4/13/16), 194 So. 3d 657, writ denied, 16-0959 (La. 5/1/17), 219 So. 3d

332.

The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of La. C.

Cr. P. art. 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions.

Where the record clearly shows an adequate factual basis for the sentence

imposed, remand is unnecessary even where there has not been full

compliance with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State v. Lanclos, 419 So. 2d 475

(La. 1982); State v. Lee, 53,461 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/22/20), 293 So. 3d 1270,

writ denied, 20-00582 (La. 10/14/20), 302 So. 3d 1113; State v. Payne,

52,310 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/16/19), 262 So. 3d 498; State v. DeBerry, supra.

The important elements that should be considered are the defendant’s

personal history (age, family ties, marital status, health, employment record),

prior criminal record, seriousness of the offense, and the likelihood of

rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049 (La. 1981); State v. DeBerry,

supra.

Where a defendant has pled guilty to an offense which does not

adequately describe his conduct or has received a significant reduction in

potential exposure to confinement through a plea bargain, the trial court has

great discretion in imposing even the maximum sentence possible for the

pled offense. State v. Robinson, 49,825 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/15), 166 So.

3d 403; State v. Reese, 49,849 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/15), 166 So. 3d 1175,

writ denied, 15-1236 (La. 6/3/16), 192 So. 3d 760; State v. Wooten, 49,710

(La. App. 2 Cir. 4/15/15), 164 So. 3d 937; State v. Key, 46,119 (La. App. 2

Cir. 3/2/11), 58 So. 3d 578, writ denied, 11-0594 (La. 10/7/11), 71 So. 3d
4

310; State v. Boudreaux, 44,502 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/23/09), 21 So. 3d 1022.

There is no requirement that specific matters be given any particular weight

at sentencing. State v. DeBerry, supra; State v. Shumaker, 41,547 (La. App.

2 Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So. 2d 277, writ denied, 07-0144 (La. 9/28/07), 964

So. 2d 351.

Considering the above, this court must first examine whether the

sentencing court complied with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. At the sentencing

hearing, the PSI was entered into record under seal. The trial court found

that the PSI revealed that between the years of 2008 and 2016, Couch had

committed acts of inappropriate sexual touching on young juvenile students

at the Apostolic Tabernacle School. The court found that Couch was in a

unique position of control and influence over the students and that he

repeatedly engaged in the criminal conduct on the juveniles while they were

under his supervision. The court noted that the PSI also revealed that Couch

had no juvenile criminal record, that this was his first adult conviction for

any felony offense, and that he maintained gainful employment. The court

further accepted into consideration an eight-page letter written by Couch.

The court noted that it had carefully considered the PSI, all factors in

mitigation, any comments on behalf of the defendant, and the nature of the

offense in light of Article 894.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

court reviewed correspondence from both the victims and acquaintances of

the defendant, including 44 letters of support in favor of the defendant.

The trial court further noted that the defendant expressed no remorse.

The court determined that there were no grounds tending to excuse or justify

the defendant’s conduct or that he was acting under any strong provocation.

The court also noted that it would strongly consider the fact that before the
5

initiation of the crimes in August of 2008, the defendant had no criminal

history. The court also recognized that imprisonment of the defendant

would cause a hardship on his dependents.

Finally, the court noted that the defendant received favorable

treatment by the State in reducing charges from molestation of a juvenile,

which carries a potential sentence of up to 20 years on each count, to the

lesser charge of indecent behavior with a juvenile, which carries a maximum

of seven years on each count. Thus, Couch’s potential exposure was

reduced from 100 years in prison to a maximum of seven years. As an

educator, had Couch been convicted of molestation of a juvenile under

Article 81.2(B)(3)(a), he would have been exposed to imprisonment of not

less than five years nor more than forty years per count. As such, his

exposure of five separate charges would have been up to 200 years at hard

labor. A plea agreement restricting his sentence to a maximum of seven

years, with the five counts to run concurrently, can only be described as

lenient and generous considering the similar burden of proof for the charge

to which Couch was permitted to plead guilty (La. R.S. 14:81) as compared

to the molestation charge (La. R.S. 14:81.2).

As noted above, the trial court is not required to list every aggravating

or mitigating circumstance so long as the record reflects adequate

consideration of the guidelines of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State v. Smith,

supra; West, supra; DeBerry, supra. Here, it is clear that the trial court met

the requirements of La. C. Cr. P. art 894.1 and enumerated in great detail its

considerations and the factual basis for imposing the sentence. For the

foregoing reasons, the first prong of the test has been satisfied and the

second, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error are without merit.
6

The second prong of the excessiveness test is whether the sentence

violates La. Const. art. I § 20. A sentence violates La. Const. art. I, § 20, if it

is grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense or nothing more

than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v.

Dorthey, 623 So. 2d 1276 (La. 1993); State v. Bonanno, 384 So. 2d 355 (La.

1980). A sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if, when the crime

and punishment are viewed in light of the harm done to society, it shocks the

sense of justice. State v. Weaver, 01-0467 (La. 1/15/02), 805 So. 2d 166;

State v. West, supra; State v. Meadows, 51,843 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/18),

246 So. 3d 639, writ denied, 18-0259 (La. 10/29/18), 254 So. 3d 1208. The

sentencing court has wide discretion in imposing a sentence within statutory

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

of manifest abuse of that discretion. State v. Williams, 03-3514 (La.

12/13/04), 893 So. 2d 7; State v. Duncan, 47,697 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/16/13),

109 So. 3d 921, writ denied, 13-0324 (La. 9/13/13), 120 So. 3d 280.

The trial court is in the best position to consider the aggravating and

mitigating circumstances of a particular case and, therefore, is given broad

discretion in sentencing. State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So. 2d

957, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043, 117 S. Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed. 2d 539 (1996);

State v. West, supra; State v. Valadez, 52,162 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/15/18), 251

So. 3d 1273; State v. Jackson, 51,575 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/17), 244 So. 3d

764. On review, an appellate court does not determine whether another

sentence may have been more appropriate, but whether the trial court abused

its discretion. State v. Davis, 52,453 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/27/19), 265 So. 3d

1194; State v. Boehm, 51,229 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/5/17), 217 So. 3d 596.

7

The record reflects that the trial court found that the defendant’s

conduct and actions toward the juvenile victims fell far below an acceptable

standard of behavior and that the defendant used his position of authority to

sexually grope his minor students, who were members of his church and

school community. The trial court determined that the defendant’s actions

were callous and egregious. The record reflects that the defendant’s

behavior continued for a number of years and involved a number of victims,

which the trial court found manifested a deliberate cruelty to the victims.

The dreadful impact on the lives of these victims was expressed to the trial

court in the form of letters included in the PSI.

The trial court established that the defendant knew or should have

known that the victims of his actions were particularly vulnerable and

incapable of resisting as a result of their young age. Furthermore, the

defendant continues to express a lack of remorse for his actions toward the

minors placed in his care, even going so far as to note, in his pro-se brief to

this court, that the minor victims, in their early teens, were some of his

“closest friends.” Couch continued in his pleadings to offer an apology “for

any of my actions that appeared inappropriate.” Such an assertion falls far

short of any acknowledgment of or apology for the serious, inappropriate,

and harmful conduct of the defendant. The record reflects that the

defendant’s actions resulted in serious emotional harm to several of the

victims, and it was the trial court’s opinion that the victims will likely never

be able to blot out their memories of the actions of the defendant.

Couch was originally charged by the grand jury with five counts of

molestation of a juvenile, which carries a sentencing exposure of up to 100

years. La. R.S. 14:81.2(A) and (C). As a part of his plea agreement, Couch
8

agreed to pled guilty on five counts of the reduced charge of indecent

behavior with juveniles, which has a sentencing of a fine not more than

$5,000, imprisonment with or without hard labor for not more than seven

years, or both, on each count. La. R.S. 14:81(H)(1). The trial court

sentenced Couch to seven years on each count, all sentences to run

concurrently, with one year and six months of each sentence suspended, and

three years of active supervised probation.

Effectively, Couch received a 5½ year prison sentence, with a

probationary period to follow, after pleading guilty to five counts of indecent

behavior with juveniles entrusted to him. Couch will spend less than seven

years in prison, far less than the maximum punishment that could have been

imposed for his numerous crimes against minors. While Couch is classified

as having no prior criminal record, any such mitigation that may offer is

more than offset by the aggravating factors of the ages and number of

victims and the number of years during which Couch was permitted to prey

on these children.

We find that Couch’s sentences are not disproportional to the facts

and circumstances of this case, nor do they shock the sense of justice.

Couch received the significant benefit of a plea agreement, the benefits of

which reduced his exposure to jail time from 100 years to seven years. The

sentences are not constitutionally excessive, and Couch’s first assignment of

error is likewise without merit.

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, Couch’s sentences are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

9