State of Louisiana v. Traveon R. Cannon

Judgment rendered October 2, 2024.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,847-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

TRAVEON R. CANNON Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 374,408

Honorable Donald E. Hathaway, Jr., Judge

*****

LAW OFFICES OF J. RANSDELL KEENE Counsel for Appellant
By: J. Ransdell Keene

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

JASON WAYNE WALTMAN
MARGARET E. RICHIE GASKINS
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before COX, STEPHENS, and THOMPSON, JJ.

THOMPSON, J.

Traveon R. Cannon helped plan and implement the murder of Jaderris

Montreal Taylor by picking him up the day of shooting, providing the pistol,

shooting him at least one time, and then attempting to get rid of the firearm.

Cannon did not realize he had inadvertently left his phone and identification

at the murder scene, and when he was interviewed by the police, he lied to

them about the events the night of the shooting. When faced with the

substantial evidence connecting him to the shooting, Cannon eventually pled

guilty to second degree murder and agreed to testify against his codefendant,

in an apparent hope of receiving a downward deviation from the mandatory

life sentence for second degree murder. Cannon claimed the codefendant

shot the victim five times and was the more culpable of the two. The

codefendant elected to proceed to trial and was convicted by that jury of the

lesser charge of negligent homicide, for which he received a five-year hard

labor sentence. At Cannon’s sentencing, the trial court rejected the request

for a downward deviation and sentenced him to the mandatory life sentence,

which Cannon now appeals. For reasons more fully detailed below, we

affirm his life sentence for second degree murder.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 25, 2020, the body of Jaderris Montreal Taylor was

discovered by a passing motorist on the edge of a road in Shreveport,

Louisiana. He was pronounced dead at the scene, suffering from six

gunshots: two to his chest, one to his right shoulder, one to his left arm, one

to his neck, and one to his right cheek. Next to his body, police located a

cigar, two .38 caliber shell casings, and a cell phone in a purple case lying

face down. The back of the purple cell phone case had a storage

compartment, which contained a Louisiana ID belonging to Traveon

Rushaun Cannon (“Cannon”), the defendant in this case.

According to Taylor’s family, Taylor was picked up from their home

by a man named “Trey Cain” driving his mother’s white Nissan with black

rims, tinted windows, and a black spoiler. The police investigation revealed

that Cannon lived at home with his mother, Juanita Bush, who owned a

white 2017 Nissan Altima with black rims, tinted windows, and a black

spoiler.

The day following the shooting, Cannon was interviewed by Detective

Saiz with the Shreveport Police Department. After being read his Miranda

rights, Cannon claimed the victim, Taylor, was a close friend and “almost

like a brother” to him. Cannon admitted to picking Taylor up from his home

on February 25, 2020, in his mother’s car, as described by Taylor’s family

members. Cannon first told Detective Saiz that he and Taylor went to an

apartment complex in the Southern Hills neighborhood to meet two men

Taylor knew because Taylor wanted to trade a gun with them. Cannon

claimed he and Taylor got into an older model brown Impala with the two

men, who drove them to South Shrevepark Drive. Cannon claimed that one

of the men asked for the gun and told them to get out of the car. The man

said that he wanted to shoot the gun and pretended like he was going to

shoot it, but then he aimed the gun at Taylor and shot him. Cannon claimed

that, after hearing the first shot, he dropped his phone and ran away, hearing

several other shots as he ran. He claimed to have run through the woods and

back to his mother’s car.

2

As the interview continued, and Detective Saiz confronted Cannon

with several inconsistencies in his story. Cannon changed his story and

ultimately admitted to driving Taylor to South Shrevepark Drive himself in

his mother’s white Nissan. Cannon then admitted that another individual,

Kasey Howard, was with them. Cannon described Howard as “like a cousin

to me” and admitted that although he and Taylor were formerly close

friends, at the time of this homicide, they were no longer close because they

associated with different cliques.

Cannon then elaborated on this second version of the events the night

of the shooting. He claimed Howard had observed Cannon and Taylor

talking, which apparently offended Howard and led him to want to kill

Taylor. Howard instructed Cannon to tell Taylor that they were going to go

for a drive and shoot a gun. On the day of the shooting, Taylor rode with

Howard and Cannon to Shrevepark Drive. Howard told Taylor to record a

video of him shooting a gun that was in Cannon’s glove compartment.

Cannon explained that Howard shot the victim five times and then handed

the gun to Cannon and told him to shoot Taylor too. Cannon admitted to

shooting the victim once, at Howard’s instruction.

Text messages and Instagram messages between Cannon and Howard

indicated that they had been planning to kill Taylor since at least February

24, 2020. On February 24, 2020, Cannon messaged Howard stating, “Ima

get da whip but aint gone have it that long how long it’s gone take for us to

do that,” indicating he would use his mother’s car but would not have it for

long. Howard replied, “We can just pick him up and do it. He thank we fw

some hoes,” indicating they could lure Taylor to come with them because

they were going to meet up with some women.
3

On February 25, 2020, at 11:52 A.M., Cannon messaged Howard: “U

wanna hit his ass today or just wit (sic) Wait.” Howard replied, “I want

too.” The pair messaged back and forth, decided on a location for the

murder, and agreed they would use Cannon’s mother’s vehicle. Cannon

picked up Taylor 6:30 P.M., and the shooting occurred a little later that

evening. At 9:35 P.M., after the shooting had occurred, Cannon messaged

Howard on Instagram saying, “They aint got shit,” indicating that he

believed there was no evidence connecting them to the murder.

After police identified Cannon from his phone and identification left

at the scene, they obtained a search warrant for his residence and recovered

eight live .38 special rounds and one spent .38 special shell casing in the

dresser in Cannon’s bedroom. Cannon’s cell phone contained photos taken

just two days before the shooting of him holding a pink-handled Smith &

Wesson .38 special caliber firearm, which Cannon admitted was the firearm

used during the homicide. The police confirmed that the location services

on Howard’s phone indicated that he was near the murder scene at the time

the murder occurred. Messages on Howard’s phone also indicated that at

11:01 P.M. on the night of the shooting, he was trying to get rid of the

murder weapon by selling it to someone else.

On June 26, 2020, a Caddo Parish grand jury indicted Cannon and

Howard with second degree murder, pursuant to La. R.S. 14:30.1, and

Cannon filed a motion for mental evaluation and sanity panel. Counsel for

Cannon observed that during interviews, Cannon was extremely “slow.” His

mother provided a personal history including mental disability, memory

lapses, and a diagnosis of ADHD. The trial court appointed Dr. Marc Colon

and Dr. Shelley Visconte to evaluate his condition at the time of the offense
4

to determine if he could distinguish right from wrong and whether he had the

competency and capacity to proceed to trial.

Dr. Visconte filed a sanity report, with a finding that Cannon had

Borderline Intellectual Functioning and Delusional Disorder (grandiose

type) at the time of the crime but that these mental conditions did not have

an appreciable negative impact on his ability to distinguish right from

wrong. Dr. Visconte noted that Cannon was often slow to respond, with

lengthy pauses before answering. Dr. Visconte noted deficits in areas of

attention, visuospatial skills, and delayed recall. Cannon’s ability to

understand and retrieve verbal information, his perceptual reasoning score,

and overall intellectual skills fell in the extremely low range. Dr. Visconte

found Cannon was competent to stand trial because he performed well on an

assessment of competence to stand trial in persons with intellectual

disabilities.

Dr. Marc Colon filed his sanity report, finding that Cannon had a

“factual and rational understanding of the proceedings against him and is

able to rationally assist in his defense” despite his lower-than-normal score

on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (21 out of 30, with a score of less

than 25 reflecting cognitive impairment of unknown origin). Dr. Colon’s

report contained details regarding Cannon’s capacity to understand the

proceedings against him. The report noted that Cannon understood the

nature of the charge against him – second degree murder – and that it was

serious because “someone died.” Cannon acknowledged understanding of

the different roles of courtroom personnel, including the role of the defense

attorney who would “try to prove I didn’t do the crime.” Cannon also

understood that the judge “sentences you” and the jury is “a group of people
5

who listen at court and they determine if you’re guilty or not guilty.”

Cannon expressed understanding of the defenses available to him. Cannon

distinguished a guilty plea from a not guilty plea and understood the

consequences of each. Cannon stated that a guilty plea meant “I’d take the

fall for it and then they sentence me,” and a not guilty plea meant “I’m

saying I didn’t do it and it goes to court.” Cannon acknowledged that he

would be sentenced upon being found guilty. Dr. Colon’s report did not

provide any specific details or questions regarding Cannon’s understanding

of a mandatory life sentence.

On October 27, 2021, the trial court held a sanity hearing and then

ruled that Cannon was competent to stand trial. The following year, on

October 13, 2022, Cannon withdrew his former plea of not guilty and pled

guilty to the charge of second degree murder. The record shows that his

guilty plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered; the validity of his guilty

plea is not at issue on appeal to this Court. Cannon’s sentencing was

deferred until after the filing of a motion requesting a downward deviation

from the mandatory life sentence, and after the trial of his codefendant,

Howard, at which Cannon offered to testify. Cannon was clearly hopeful his

testimony against Howard would boost his potential for a downward

deviation by the trial court from the mandatory life sentence that

accompanied his guilty plea to second degree murder.

On August 22, 2023, after Howard’s trial had concluded, Cannon filed

a motion requesting the trial court make a downward departure from the

mandatory sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor, without benefit of

probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. In his motion, Cannon argued

that his extremely low intellectual functioning and his cooperation with the
6

State in the investigation and at Howard’s trial qualified him as the

exceptional defendant entitled to a lower sentence. At the sentencing

hearing, the trial court declined to depart from the mandatory life sentence

and sentenced Cannon to mandatory life. The record reflects the trial court

considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, in accordance with

La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, and acknowledged one mitigating factor, noting that

Cannon had no history of prior delinquency or criminal activity. Although

the trial court considered the motion for a downward departure in

sentencing, it determined that a life sentence was an appropriate sentence for

the murder of the victim, to which Cannon had pled guilty.

Cannon filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was

subsequently denied by the trial court after argument. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Cannon asserts one assignment of error on appeal relating to his life

sentence.

Assignment of Error: It was error to not vary from the statutory life
sentence without benefits when the sentence was inequal and unjust
under the circumstances of the case. The defendant in this case was of
borderline in intellectual functioning and manipulated by a
codefendant.

Cannon argues that a downward deviation from the statutory

mandatory minimum life sentence is appropriate in his case. Cannon asserts

that he has no prior criminal record, is of extremely low intellectual

functioning, aided the State in the prosecution of Howard by testifying

against his codefendant, and admitted his participation in the offense at an

early stage. Cannon asserts that to punish him with a life sentence is an

injustice and an abuse of discretion and that his codefendant, Howard, took

advantage of his intellectual disabilities, using him to help carry out a violent
7

murder. Cannon notes that Howard sent messages from jail for Cannon to

not testify against him, in an attempt to obstruct the case against him.

Despite this, Cannon did testify for the State against Howard during his trial.

Cannon argues that the sentence should be patterned on his youth, his

extremely low intellectual functioning, his ultimate honesty about his

participation in the crime, and his willingness to testify without promises.

Cannon also notes that Howard, who elected to proceed to trial, was found

guilty by a jury of negligent homicide. Cannon asks this Court to address

the inequities of the situation as compared to Howard’s sentence and to

depart from the mandatory life sentence imposed by his guilty plea to second

degree murder.

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

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

with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983).

Second, the court must determine whether the sentence is constitutionally

excessive. 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, citing State v. Bonanno, 384 So. 2d 355

(La. 1980).

Where there is a mandatory sentence, there is no need for the trial

court to justify, under La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, a sentence it is legally

required to impose. State v. Burd, 40,480 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/27/06), 921 So.

2d 219, writ denied, 06-1083 (La. 11/9/06), 941 So. 2d 35. The mandatory

sentence for second degree murder is punishment by life imprisonment at

hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of
8

sentence. La. R.S. 14:30.1(B). Louisiana appellate courts have repeatedly

rejected the argument that the mandatory life sentence for second degree

murder is a violation of the prohibition against excessive punishment in the

Louisiana Constitution. State v. Parker, 416 So. 2d 545 (La. 1982); State v.

Smith, 49,839 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/15), 166 So. 3d 416, writ denied, 15-

1244 (La. 6/3/16), 192 So. 3d 753.

To rebut the presumption that the mandatory minimum sentence is

constitutional and receive a downward departure in sentencing, a defendant

must clearly and convincingly show that he is exceptional, which means that

because of unusual circumstances he is a victim of the legislature’s failure to

assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the

offender, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstances of the case. State

v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La. 3/4/98), 709 So. 2d 672.

The Legislature’s determination of an appropriate minimum sentence

should be afforded great deference by the judiciary. The rare circumstances

in which a mandatory minimum sentence is unconstitutionally excessive are

even less likely in the case of a life sentence chosen by the legislature for a

single crime, such as first degree rape or second-degree murder. State v.

York, 48,230 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/7/13), 121 So. 3d 1226, writ denied, 13-2154

(La. 3/21/14), 135 So. 3d 617.

The circumstances surrounding Taylor’s senseless murder were

extreme and displayed an absolute disregard for human life. Cannon was the

primary actor in a premediated scheme to kill the victim. Cannon’s

messages to Howard planning the murder for some time were found on his

cell phone. Surveillance footage from the victim’s home confirms that he

lured a former close friend into the vehicle. Cannon drove him to a remote
9

location and admitted to firing – from the gun he provided – at least one of

at the six shots that ultimately killed the victim. When interviewed by the

police, Cannon lied multiple times. After participating in the killing of the

victim, Cannon left the body on the side of the road and did not call the

police or 911. Instead, Cannon sent a text message to Howard expressing

his belief that there would be no evidence connecting them to the murder

and set about attempting to get rid of the murder weapon. While Cannon did

have intellectual functioning disorders, the doctors who examined him

determined that his disability did not have an appreciable negative impact on

his ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Cannon clearly

orchestrated and accomplished the plan of killing the victim and attempted

to avoid the consequences.

This Court has repeatedly rejected the argument that a defendant’s

low IQ or limited intellect is, by itself, enough to make a sentence

unconstitutionally excessive. See State v. Little, 50,776 (La. App. 2 Cir.

8/10/16), 200 So. 3d 400, writ denied, 16-1664 (La. 6/16/17), 219 So. 3d

341; State v. Taylor, 49,467 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/14/15), 161 So. 3d 963; State

v. Crossley, 48,149 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/26/13), 117 So. 3d 585, writ denied,

13-1798 (La. 2/14/14), 132 So. 3d 410. Although Cannon did testify at

Howard’s trial, he had no plea agreement with the State to do so. The State

and Cannon’s attorney made it clear at the time of the guilty plea and

sentencing hearings that there was no agreement with the State to

recommend a downward deviation in sentencing and no commitment as to

the length of his sentence. At sentencing, the trial court advised Cannon of

the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, and he acknowledged his

understanding. Cannon’s codefendant’s conviction by a jury of a lesser
10

offense does not lessen Cannon’s culpability for the acts he admitted to at

the time of his guilty plea.

The mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for a conviction of

second degree murder is presumed to be constitutional, and Cannon failed to

demonstrate that he is an exceptional defendant for whom a downward

departure from the statutory minimum sentence is required. Cannon’s

sentence is not out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense and is not a

purposeless or needless infliction of pain and suffering. While, in hindsight,

Cannon may regret not proceeding to trial or entering a guilty plea without

an agreed-upon recommendation for a downward deviation in sentencing,

his planning and execution of this murderous plot is undeniable. The trial

court considered his request but obviously concluded Cannon’s part in this

killing did not merit a downward deviation in the mandatory sentencing.

Accordingly, we find that Cannon’s life sentence is not unconstitutionally

excessive. Cannon’s assignment of error is without merit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Traveon R. Cannon’s mandatory life

sentence for second degree murder is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

11