State of Louisiana v. Rustin Randall Middleton

Judgment rendered May 22, 2024.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,634-KA
No. 55,635-KA
(Consolidated Cases)

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

RUSTIN RANDALL MIDDLETON Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana
Trial Court Nos. 382,343 and 382,427

Honorable Donald Edgar Hathaway, Jr., Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Peggy J. Sullivan

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

RON CHRISTOPHER STAMPS
REBECCA A. EDWARDS
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before STONE, COX, and THOMPSON, JJ.

COX, J.

Rustin Randall Middleton was charged with two counts each of

aggravated rape and sexual battery under two docket numbers in Caddo

Parish, which were consolidated into one proceeding. Middleton was found

guilty as charged on all four counts. He was sentenced to two life sentences,

99 years, and 10 years, all to be served consecutively at hard labor and

without benefits. Middleton now appeals his convictions and sentences. For

the following reasons, we affirm and remand with instructions.

FACTS

On July 21, 2021, Middleton, born 7/8/1986, was indicted on the

following four charges:

Count 1: aggravated rape as defined in La. R.S. 14:42(A)(4)- the victim is
N.M.(DOB: 9/25/2006);1

Count 2: sexual battery as defined in La. R.S. 14:43.1(A)(2) and (C)(2)- the
victim is N.M.;

Count 3: aggravated rape as defined in La. R.S. 14:42(A)(4)- the victim is
D.H. (DOB 4/23/93);

Count 4: sexual battery in violation in La. R.S. 14:43.1(A)(2)- the victim is
D.H.

The jury trial commenced on March 21, 2023. Jennifer Brumley

testified that she is N.M.’s mother; Middleton is her ex-husband; and,

Middleton adopted N.M. after they had been married for six months. Ms.

Brumley stated that N.M. did not come home from school one afternoon in

April of 2021. She stated that N.M. was ultimately found at Byrd High

1
La. R.S. 14:42(E) states:

For all purposes, “aggravated rape” and “first degree rape” mean the
offense defined by the provisions of this Section and any reference to the
crime of aggravated rape is the same as a reference to the crime of first
degree rape. Any act in violation of the provisions of this Section
committed on or after August 1, 2015, shall be referred to as “first degree
rape”.

School by her grandparents and went to her grandparents’ house because she

was “deathly afraid” of Middleton. She testified that while at her

grandparents’ house that evening, N.M. told her that she attempted suicide

twice because Middleton was sexually abusing her. When Ms. Brumley

asked her what that meant, N.M. described tickling that went too far when

she was six to eight years old and stated Middleton began putting his penis

in her mouth when she was 11 years old, the summer after she completed

sixth grade. Ms. Brumley testified that when N.M. told her when the abuse

began, she realized that the abuse coincided with N.M.’s personality

changing and her grades falling. N.M. was in a gifted student program and

attended Caddo Middle Magnet for both the seventh and eighth grades. Ms.

Brumley stated that N.M.’s grades continued to fall in high school.

Ms. Brumley testified that when she learned of the abuse, she called

the police and gave police N.M.’s suicide note and journal, in which N.M.

had written about the abuse. Ms. Brumley stated that N.M. was taken to the

psychiatric ward at Ochsner Shreveport and later to Brentwood Hospital

because of her suicide attempts. She stated that she learned N.M. was

cutting herself prior to the disclosure and continued cutting herself for six to

eight months after the disclosure.

On cross-examination, Ms. Brumley stated that N.M. was required to

make at least a 2.5 GPA to stay at Byrd because it was not her neighborhood

school. She testified that a 2.5 was an “easy C” and N.M. was not

maintaining that GPA. She stated that N.M. was supposed to bring her

report card home on the day she disclosed the abuse.

N.M. testified in another room and her testimony was simultaneously

televised into the courtroom for the jury. N.M.’s Gingerbread House video
2

was played for the jury. She testified that everything she stated in the video

was true. She stated that she began writing down the things Middleton did

to her when she was in the ninth grade but did not show them to anyone until

the day she did not come home from school. Twenty-eight pages of journal

entries were read to the jury. N.M. stated that the front of her journal entries

says “goodbye, sorry” because she was planning to kill herself. She stated

that she cannot remember the date she began writing the journal entries but

the portion that says “goodbye” was written on February 9, 2021. Her

journal entries revealed that she could not tell anyone what was happening

and liked to just be alone. One entry details physical abuse, stating that

Middleton would choke her until she passed out, “bang” her into walls, and

slap her. N.M. testified that if she told Middleton she was going to tell her

mom about him beating her, he would say that he would make up a reason

for beating her, like she had been lying.

In one of the journal entries, N.M. described a time when she was six

or eight and Middleton told her to kneel in front of his chair and close her

eyes. He put his penis in her mouth and she gagged and choked. She stated

that she peeked and saw that it was his penis, but he lied and said it was a

test with his thumbs. In another journal entry, she stated that tickling

reminds her of when Middleton would tickle her and “go too low.” She

stated in her journal, “He would mess with me and I would cry. Every time

I would cry. I used to be terrified of him. So I would say I didn’t like it, and

he would tell me I did. Eventually I would get scared and give in and tell

him what he wanted to hear.” Another journal entry contains details of

being forced to kiss him and have “make out sessions.” Multiple journal

entries contain details of N.M. telling Middleton “no” but ultimately being
3

forced to perform sexual acts. N.M. stated that this would happen when no

one else was home or when siblings were told to leave the room.

N.M. summarized some of the abuse in one of her journal entries. She

stated, “HELP ME! Sexually harassed!” and listed the following:

(1) at around 6(?)2 was forced to my knees, told to close my
eyes, gagged, then lied to
(2) Every time being tickled would go too far- since around 6(?)
(3) Slaps me down to ground if I say no
(4) master at fake orgasms without ever really having one I
think
(5) cried almost every time being touched
(6) talked about like I was gonna get raped
(7) Never had a choice, always threatened
(8) Tell anyone & you die
(9) Terrifying! Hate myself & body! No one ever cares or is
ever gonna save me.
(10) Last time was while out of school [because] others were
ACT testing. First was 6th grade (going to 7th) summer break
On cross-examination, N.M. was questioned about her grades. She

stated that she was not maintaining the required GPA but would not be

kicked out of Byrd until the end of the year. She stated she was scared to go

home with her report card because she was failing and had lied to her

parents about online access to her report card.

Meaghan Hughes was accepted as an expert in forensic interviewing,

delayed reporting, and childhood sexual trauma. She testified that she is a

forensic interviewer at the Gingerbread House and interviewed N.M. Ms.

Hughes’s notes from the interview were filed into evidence. Her notes detail

the following statements from N.M. during the interview: tickling went too

far; Middleton would touch her vagina and boobs; N.M. forced to kiss

Middleton; N.M. was scared; and Middleton beat N.M. and threatened her.

2
N.M. testified that the question marks indicated she could not remember her
exact age, just the range of six to eight years old.

4

Ms. Hughes’s notes also contain N.M.’s account of being forced to close her

eyes while Middleton put his penis in her mouth but told her it was his

thumbs.

Olivia Ferguson testified that she is a counselor at the Gingerbread

House and counseled N.M. after she was referred by the family advocate

team. She testified that in a typical situation, the abused child will attend six

to 25 counseling sessions; N.M. attended 74 sessions and was one of the

most severe cases Ms. Ferguson has seen. Ms. Ferguson stated that she

diagnosed N.M. with PTSD as a result of her physical, sexual, and emotional

abuse.

D.H. testified that he is Middleton’s stepbrother. He stated that his

mother married Middleton’s father when he was about six years old and

Middleton is six or seven years older than him. D.H. testified that sometime

after he turned eight years old, Middleton called him into his room to watch

pornography. He stated that this happened multiple times and progressed

into Middleton asking him to sit on his lap and touching his penis. He

testified that the abuse stopped when Middleton moved out of the house but

began again when he was 11 and Middleton moved back into the home. He

stated that when he was 12, Middleton performed oral sex on him and asked

for it in return. He stated that he was always uncomfortable and finally told

Middleton he was not doing it anymore. He testified that his family moved

to Arkansas after that and Middleton did not move with them. D.H. stated

that after he heard about N.M.’s disclosure, he disclosed to his mother what

happened to him. He testified that he felt “extremely guilty” for not

disclosing the incidents sooner because he felt like he could have prevented

what happened to N.M.
5

Shreveport Police Department Detective David Karam testified that he

received a call at 2:30 a.m. on April 13, 2021, informing him that N.M.

disclosed being sexually abused by her father. He stated that he observed

N.M.’s interview at the Gingerbread House and reviewed her journal entries.

He stated that he learned that Middleton had penetrated N.M.’s vagina with

his fingers and forced her to perform oral sex. He testified that during his

investigation, he was informed that D.H. disclosed sexual abuse by

Middleton as well. Det. Karam obtained an arrest warrant for Middleton and

alerted Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Department (“CPSD”) for the portion of the

investigation that occurred outside Shreveport city limits.

CPSD Detective Christopher Ardoin testified that he received

information from Det. Karam on D.H.’s report of sexual abuse. Det.

Ardoin’s account of his interview with D.H. corroborated D.H.’s testimony.

The defense called R.M., N.M.’s younger sister and Middleton’s

daughter, to the stand. At the time of trial, R.M. was 12 years old. She

stated that after her Gingerbread House interview, she knew she had not

been completely honest with the interviewer. R.M. could not recall details

of the interview but knew she lied about not seeing her sister being abused.

She stated she was not truthful because she was scared of Middleton.

Middleton testified that he had cancer at the age of 15 and has been

disabled and unable to work since 2013. He stated that he has been on

various medications in the past and is currently on medication for pain,

nerve damage, and sleep. Middleton admitted that N.M. would rub the

outside of his thigh and foot because it helped with the nerve damage, but he

denied that she ever rubbed the inside of his thigh. Middleton also denied

living in the house with D.H. when D.H. claimed Middleton had moved
6

back in. Middleton testified that D.H.’s testimony was “disgusting” and

denied ever sexually abusing D.H.

Middleton testified that he required his children to make straight A’s

and would discipline them for making B’s or C’s. He stated that he

threatened to take N.M. out of Byrd before they kicked her out if she had

F’s. Middleton stated that N.M. did not bring her report card home the

previous week and was told to bring it home on Monday, April 12, 2021.

He testified that she texted him that she was riding the bus home instead of

going to tutoring and he asked her if she had her report card. He stated that

N.M. never came home on the bus. Middleton detailed the places he

searched for N.M. when she did not get off the bus. Middleton stated that

police arrived at his house the next day and arrested him for rape. Middleton

denied the rape and sexually abusing anyone. On cross-examination,

Middleton admitted to being physically abusive in spanking the children.

The jury deliberated for about an hour and a half and unanimously

found Middleton guilty as charged on all four counts.

Middleton filed a motion for new trial and motion for post-verdict

judgment of acquittal, which were denied in open court. At sentencing, the

trial court detailed the negative effects on both victims and highlighted that

Middleton had been so cruel to N.M. that she had to testify from a different

location. The trial court stated that because he preyed on both male and

female victims, he was the worst of the worst. The trial court found the

following from La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1(A) to be applicable: there is an undue

risk that defendant will commit another crime; defendant needs correctional

treatment; and a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the

crime. Regarding aggravating factors, the trial court found: the offender’s
7

conduct during the commission of the offense manifested deliberate cruelty

to the victims; the offender knew or should have known that the victims

were particularly vulnerable or incapable of resistance due to youth; the

offender used his position or status to facilitate the commission of the

offense; the offender used threats or actual violence in the commission of the

offense; the offense resulted in a significant permanent injury to the victim

and his/her family; the offender was persistently involved in similar

offenses; and the offender has not accepted responsibility for his actions.

The trial court considered mitigating factors but did not find any to apply.

The trial court sentenced Middleton to the following sentences, all to

be served at hard labor and without benefits: life for count 1; 99 years for

count 2; life for count 3; and 10 years for count 4. The sentences were

ordered to run consecutively. The trial court filed into the record its

sentencing guideline, outlining its sentencing considerations. Middleton

filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied by the trial court.

Middleton now appeals.

ARGUMENTS

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Middleton asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to support the

felony convictions. Middleton highlights N.M.’s grades and N.M. not

bringing her report card home. He testified that he never sexually abused

N.M., but he told her days before the reported abuse that she would have to

go to Huntington High School if she had F’s on her report card. He argues

that there were no witnesses to corroborate N.M.’s testimony and no

physical evidence was introduced. He highlights that N.M.’s journal entries

were written in her ninth-grade year, the same year she disclosed the abuse.
8

Regarding D.H., Middleton states that he did not live in the home with

D.H. for “some time” prior to the report of abuse. He points out that D.H.’s

allegations were not made until after N.M. made her allegations. Middleton

argues that N.M. and D.H. were close and he had previously expressed that

they were too close. Middleton also denied ever abusing D.H.

The State highlights the detailed testimonies of N.M., her mother, Ms.

Hughes, Ms. Ferguson, Det. Karam, Det. Ardoin, D.H., and R.M. The State

argues that the testimonies of N.M. and D.H. were sufficient to establish the

elements of the offenses. The State asserts that the jury was required to

make a witness credibility determination and Middleton’s arguments were

not believed by the jury.

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. 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. 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. Steines, supra. 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.

Bass, 51,411 (La. App. 2 Cir 6/21/17), 223 So. 3d 1242. A reviewing court

9

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

testimony of a witness in whole or in part. Bass, supra.

It is the province of the fact finder to resolve conflicting inferences

from the evidence. In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable

conflict with physical evidence, the testimony of one witness—if believed

by the trier of fact—is sufficient to support the requisite factual conclusion.

Such testimony alone is sufficient even where the state does not introduce

medical, scientific, or physical evidence. This is equally applicable to the

testimony of sexual assault victims. Bass, supra.

La. R.S. 14:42 states, in relevant part:

A. First degree rape is a rape committed upon a person sixty-
five years of age or older or where the anal, oral, or vaginal
sexual intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of
the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the
following circumstances:
…
(4) When the victim is under the age of thirteen years. Lack of
knowledge of the victim’s age shall not be a defense.

La. R.S. 14:43.1 states, in relevant part:

A. Sexual battery is the intentional touching of the anus or
genitals of the victim by the offender using any instrumentality
or any part of the body of the offender, directly or through
clothing, or the touching of the anus or genitals of the offender
by the victim using any instrumentality or any part of the body
of the victim, directly or through clothing, when any of the
following occur:
…
(2) The victim has not yet attained fifteen years of age and is at
least three years younger than the offender.

The evidence was sufficient to convict Middleton of first degree rape

and sexual battery of N.M. N.M. testified that Middleton began

inappropriately touching her and putting his penis in her mouth when she

was six or eight years old, and her journal entries about the incidents were

read for the jury. In addition, Ms. Ferguson, N.M.’s counselor from the
10

Gingerbread House, testified that N.M. was one of the most severe cases she

had seen as a result of abuse. Ms. Ferguson testified that N.M. suffered

from PTSD because of Middleton’s abuse. Middleton testified on his own

behalf and denied the allegations made by N.M. Middleton admitted that his

physical discipline of the children would be taken too far, but he stated he

never sexually abused N.M.

The jury was required to make a credibility determination as to

whether they believed Middleton’s testimony or that of N.M. N.M.’s

testimony was supported by her journal entries and the testimony of her

counselor, Ms. Ferguson. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at

trial, the jury had sufficient evidence to find Middleton guilty of the crimes

against N.M. This argument lacks merit.

The evidence was also sufficient to convict Middleton of first degree

rape and sexual battery of D.H. D.H.’s testimony alone was sufficient for

the jury to find Middleton guilty. D.H. stated that Middleton began bringing

him into his room to watch pornography after he turned 8 years old. He

stated that watching pornography progressed into sitting on Middleton’s lap,

touching his penis, and performing oral sex. Again, because Middleton

testified and denied the allegations made by D.H., the jury was tasked with

making a credibility determination. The guilty verdict indicates that the jury

found D.H. to be credible and believed his version of the events. We will

not disturb the jury’s credibility determination in this case. This assignment

of error lacks merit. We affirm Middleton’s four convictions.

Excessive Sentence

Middleton argues that he should not be characterized as the worst of

the worst. He argues that the trial court erred in including his failure to
11

accept responsibility for his actions as an aggravating factor. He states that

his constitutional right to trial should not be considered an aggravating

factor. He argues that while the life sentences were mandatory, the

remainder of the sentencing decisions were not. He asserts that the

consecutive sentences and 99-year sentence are constitutionally excessive.

The State argues that a review of the sentencing transcript precludes

any finding of an abuse of sentencing discretion by the trial court. The State

detailed the trial court’s considerations under the La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1

factors and noted that the trial court also filed a sentencing memorandum

outlining sentencing considerations.

Trial courts have limited discretion to order that multiple sentences be

served concurrently or consecutively. State v. Powell, 54,893 (La. App. 2

Cir. 3/1/23), 357 So. 3d 559, writ denied, 23-00428 (La. 10/31/23), 372

So.3d 809; State v. Sandifer, 54,103 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/15/21), 330 So. 3d

1270. Concurrent sentences that arise from a single course of conduct are

not mandatory; likewise, consecutive sentences under those circumstances

are not necessarily excessive. Powell, supra; State v. Harris, 52,663 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19), 277 So. 3d 912. However, where convictions stem

from separate incidents involving different victims and occurring over a

lengthy period of time, the resulting consecutive penalties will not be found

to be an abuse of discretion. Powell, supra; State v. Bailey, 50,097 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 9/30/15), 180 So. 3d 442.

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

for excessiveness. First, the record must show 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
12

as the record reflects he adequately considered the guidelines of the article.

State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983); State v. Garner, 52,047 (La. App.

2 Cir. 6/27/18), 250 So. 3d 1152. 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.

Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049 (La. 1981); State v. Brooks, 52,249 (La. App. 2 Cir.

9/26/18), 256 So. 3d 524; State v. Ates, 43,327 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/13/08),

989 So. 2d 259, writ denied, 08-2341 (La. 5/15/09), 8 So. 3d 581. 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, the seriousness of the offense, and the likelihood of

rehabilitation. There is no requirement that specific matters be given any

particular weight at sentencing. State v. Taves, 03-0518 (La. 12/03/03), 861

So. 2d 144; Brooks, supra.

Second, 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. Smith, 01-

2574 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So. 2d 1; Garner, supra. 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. Brooks,

supra.

The trial court has wide discretion in the imposition of sentences

within the statutory limits, and the sentence imposed will not be set aside as

excessive absent a manifest abuse of that discretion. State v. Williams, 03-
13

3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So. 2d 7; Brooks, supra. On review, an appellate

court does not determine whether another sentence may have been more

appropriate, but whether the trial court abused its discretion. Williams,

supra; Brooks, supra.

Whoever commits the crime of first degree rape shall be punished by

life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or

suspension of sentence. La. R.S. 14:42(D)(1). La. R.S. 14:43.1 provides, in

pertinent part:

C. (1) Whoever commits the crime of sexual battery shall be
punished by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, without
benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, for not
more than ten years.

(2) Whoever commits the crime of sexual battery on a victim
under the age of thirteen years when the offender is seventeen
years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment 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 parole, probation, or
suspension of sentence.

La. C. Cr. P. art. 883 states:

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
be served consecutively. Other sentences of imprisonment shall
be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that
some or all of them be served concurrently. In the case of the
concurrent sentence, the judge shall specify, and the court
minutes shall reflect, the date from which the sentences are to
run concurrently.

As a general rule, maximum or near maximum sentences are reserved

for the worst offenders and the worst offenses. State v. Cozzetto, 07-2031

(La. 2/15/08), 974 So. 2d 665; State v. Lapoole, 51,199 (La. App. 2 Cir.

2/15/17), 215 So. 3d 430, writ denied, 17-0618 (La. 11/28/17), 230 So. 3d

220.
14

Middleton’s sentences were all set to run consecutively to one

another. Middleton had a total of four crimes against two separate victims

and the crimes occurred over multiple years. The crimes against N.M. were

a separate occurrence from the crimes against D.H. The sexual battery and

first degree rape of N.M. occurred over a span of over five years. The

sexual battery and first degree rape of D.H. occurred over approximately

four years. These four convictions arise out of at least four separate

incidents. Therefore, the consecutive sentences are appropriate under La. C.

Cr. P. art. 883.

Middleton’s two sentences of life imprisonment for first degree rape

were mandatory under La. R.S. 14:42. The trial court had no discretion in

the imposition of those sentences. Middleton was given two maximum

sentences of 10 years and 99 years under La. R.S. 14:43.1(C)(1) and (C)(2),

respectively. We review these two sentences under the abuse of discretion

standard.

We do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing

Middleton to 10 years and 99 years for sexual battery. The trial court took

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

found that there was an undue risk that Middleton would commit another

crime; Middleton needed correctional treatment; and a lesser sentence would

deprecate the seriousness of the offense. The trial court’s list of aggravated

factors is listed above, and although he did not find any mitigating factors to

apply, he stated that he did consider them. The trial court noted the negative

effects that Middleton’s action had on both victims. Although the trial court

mentions that Middleton did not take responsibility for his actions,

Middleton has maintained his innocence. Factors are not given particular
15

weight at sentencing. Therefore, not considering this one factor, the trial

court’s remaining sentencing considerations are supported by the record and

sufficient to support the sentences. The first prong of our review has been

met.

Now, we turn to whether the sentences were grossly disproportionate

to the offenses. Given the prolonged and sexual nature of the offenses and

the fact that Middleton had a male and female victim, the trial court found

Middleton to be the worst of the worst. We agree. The facts reveal that

Middleton began inappropriately touching his victims at a very young age

and continued the conduct for years. These maximum sentences do not

shock the sense of justice and are not disproportionate to the years of abuse

suffered by the victims.

This assignment of error lacks merit. We affirm Middleton’s

sentences.

Error Patent

A review for error patents reveals that the record does not include a

written notice of the sex offender registration requirements set forth in La.

R.S. 15:540, et seq. The State also concedes this error in brief. Middleton’s

convictions are sex offenses under La. R.S. 15:541. La. R.S. 15:543 requires

that the trial court provide written notice of the registration and notification

requirements to a defendant convicted of a sex offense and that an entry be

made in the court minutes stating that the written notification was provided

to the defendant. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court for

the purpose of providing the appropriate written notice to Middleton of the

sex offender registration requirements on his convictions and for the filing of

16

written proof of such notice in the record of the proceedings. State v. Allen,

54,153 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/15/21), 331 So. 3d 1101.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the convictions and sentences of the defendant, Rustin

Randall Middleton. We remand this matter to the trial court for the limited

purpose of providing the defendant with the appropriate written notice of the

sex offender registration requirements.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED; REMANDED

WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

17