State of Louisiana v. Nissan Williams

Judgment rendered May 10, 2023.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 54,967-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

NISSAN WILLIAMS Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 374,160

Honorable Donald E. Hathaway, Jr., Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Mary Constance Hanes

JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

SAM CRICHTON
TOMMY JAN JOHNSON
VICTORIA WASHINGTON
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before STONE, THOMPSON, and ROBINSON, JJ.

STONE, J.

This criminal appeal arises from the First Judicial District Court, the

Honorable Donald Hathaway presiding. The defendant-appellant, Nissan

Williams, was convicted of two counts of molestation of a juvenile under the

age of 13 pursuant to La. R.S. 14:81.2(D)(1). The two victims are the

defendant’s biological daughters. The trial court, without ordering a

presentence investigation report (“PSI”), sentenced the defendant to serve 45

years at hard labor on each count; the trial court ordered that the first 25

years of each sentence be served without possibility of parole, and that the

sentences run consecutively. The defendant filed a timely motion to

reconsider sentence, which the trial court denied. The defendant’s

assignments of error are: (1) the record does not provide an adequate factual

basis for the sentence imposed; and (2) that his sentence is unconstitutionally

excessive.

FACTS

While the victims were visiting the defendant at his home, he touched

them on their buttocks and made one of them touch his genitalia. One of the

girls further testified that the defendant got naked in front of her during the

incident, and that in the past, he had served prison time for physically

abusing her. The defendant also gave the girls pills, which he told them was

“candy,” but it was apparently a stimulant drug as it made them “stay up.”

Further yet, one victim testified that the defendant showed her a “nasty

video” contemporaneously with the molestation—an apparent reference to

pornography.

The record contains the defendant’s record of arrests and prosecutions

(i.e., “rap sheet”). He has been arrested 23 times, served prison time for

felony false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon, and has been on

probation multiple times. His rap sheet included:

• two separate arrests for obscenity in violation of La. R.S. 14:106;

• multiple arrests for battery, including domestic abuse battery;

• conviction for false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon, for
which he was sentenced to five years’ incarceration at hard labor, with
all but the first 1.5 years suspended; the arrest also included a charge
for aggravated battery with a dangerous weapon;

• arrest for possession of marijuana and use of illegal controlled
dangerous substance in the presence of minors;

• two arrests for separate incidents wherein he was charged with
resisting an officer in violation of La. R.S. 14:108, and with simple
criminal damage to property in violation of La. R.S. 14:56;

• multiple parole violations and traffic infractions;

• failure to pay child support

At sentencing the trial court considered La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1(A) and

expressly found: (1) an undue risk that the defendant would reoffend if

allowed a suspended sentence or probation; (2) defendant was in need of

correctional treatment or a custodial environment; and (3) a lesser sentence

would deprecate the seriousness of the defendant’s crimes.

Pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1(B), the trial court found two factors

in aggravation: (1) the defendant knew that the victims were incapable of

resistance because of their youth; and (2) the defendant abused his position

of authority over the girls to facilitate his molestation of them. The trial

court found no factors in mitigation.

2

DISCUSSION

The defendant argues that his aggregate sentence of 90 years of

incarceration is “cruel and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution.

Alternatively, the defendant argues that the record does not provide a

factual basis supporting the sentences imposed because it lacks information

regarding the defendant’s personal background and history. He asks this

court to remand with instructions for the trial court to receive evidence

regarding the defendant’s background and then resentence the defendant.

An excessive sentence claim is reviewed by examining whether the

trial court adequately considered the guidelines established in La. C. Cr. P.

art. 894.1, and whether the sentence is constitutionally excessive. State v.

Vanhorn, 52,583 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/19), 268 So. 3d 357, writ denied, 19-

00745 (La. 11/19/19), 282 So. 3d 1065; State v. Wing, 51,857 (La. App. 2

Cir. 2/28/18), 246 So. 3d 711. 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

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. The trial

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

long as the record reflects that it adequately considered the guidelines of the

article. State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983); State v. Croskey, 53,505

(La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/20), 296 So. 3d 1151. The important elements which

should be considered are the defendant’s personal history (age, family ties,

marital status, health, and employment record), prior criminal record,

seriousness of offense, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones,

398 So. 2d 1049 (La. 1981); Croskey, supra. There is no requirement that
3

specific matters be given any particular weight at sentencing. Croskey,

supra. Finally, if the record clearly illuminates the basis for the trial court’s

sentencing choice, failure to fully comply with La. C.C.P. art. 894.1 does not

invalidate the sentence. State v. Roberts, 427 So. 2d 1300 (La. App. 2 Cir.

1983), writ denied, 435 So. 2d 440 (La. 1983).

Second, the court must determine whether the sentence is

constitutionally excessive. Croskey, supra. Constitutional review turns upon

whether the sentence is illegal, grossly disproportionate to the severity of the

offense, or shocking to the sense of justice. 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 the purposeless infliction of pain and suffering. A

sentence is grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are

viewed in light of the harm to society, it shocks the sense of justice

Id.; State v. Baker, 51,933 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/11/18), 247 So. 3d 990, writ

denied, 18-0858 (La. 12/3/18), 257 So. 3d 195, and writ denied, 18-0833

(La. 12/3/18), 257 So. 3d 196.

The trial court has wide discretion in the imposition of sentences

within the statutory limits, and sentences should not be set aside as

excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion. Vanhorn, supra.

A trial judge is in the best position to consider the aggravating and

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

discretion in sentencing. Croskey, supra. Absent specific authority, it is not

the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the

sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence. Vanhorn,

supra.

La. R.S. 14:81.2(D)(1) provides a sentencing range of 25 to 99 years:
4

Whoever commits the crime of molestation of a juvenile
when the victim is under the age of thirteen years shall be
imprisoned at hard labor for not less than twenty-five
years nor more than ninety-nine years. At least twenty-five
years of the sentence imposed shall be served without
benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

Thus, the difference between the statutory maximum sentence and minimum

sentence is 74 years; the midpoint of that sentencing range is 62 years.

The defendant’s 45-year sentences each fall 17 years below that

midpoint. Furthermore, the trial court’s order for the sentences to run

consecutively is amply justified by the fact that each sentence pertains to a

different victim.

The defendant’s argument that the record lacks information regarding

his personal history is factually untrue: the defendant’s criminal history,

contained in the record, speaks volumes about his personal history.

Regardless, however, the defendant does not even allege that he attempted to

provide the court with information regarding his background. Accordingly,

the defendant’s argument that the trial court failed to comply with La.

C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 is without merit.

The defendant’s claim of constitutional excessiveness is also without

merit. He molested his own preteen daughters while he was supposed to be

caring for them. He gave them drugs under the pretext that it was “candy.”

He made one of his daughters touch his genitalia. His criminal record

demonstrates a high likelihood that he would reoffend if given the chance.

The defendant’s aggregate sentence is neither cruel nor unusual.

CONCLUSION

The defendant’s sentences are AFFIRMED.

5