State of Louisiana v. Keanna Gilbert Walker

Judgment rendered November 20, 2024.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,858-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

KEANNA GILBERT WALKER Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Bossier, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 247,766

Honorable Michael Owens Craig, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Douglas Lee Harville

J. SCHUYLER MARVIN Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

RICHARD RUSSELL RAY
ROBERT RANDALL SMITH
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before STONE, COX and HUNTER, JJ.

STONE, J.

This appeal arises from the Twenty-sixth Judicial District Court, the

Honorable Michael O. Craig presiding. The defendant, Keanna Gilbert

Walker (“Walker”), was charged by a bill of information with theft of a

motor vehicle, a violation of La. R.S. 14:67.26. Walker pled guilty as

charged and was sentenced to 5 years, imprisonment at hard labor with all

but 1 year suspended and 2 years of active supervised probation. Walker

appealed, asserting that her sentence was excessive and unconstitutionally

harsh. For the following reasons, we affirm the sentence of the trial court.

FACTS

On February 17, 2023, Walker, an employee of the Sonic drive-in

restaurant in Haughton, Louisiana, told a coworker, Jameion Franklin

(“victim”), that she would like to put a few things in his vehicle and asked

for his keys. After receiving the keys to his 2018 Honda Civic, Walker left

the premises in the victim’s vehicle without his permission and never

returned. Realizing that Walker had not come back inside the restaurant, the

victim called Walker’s cell phone to tell her to return his vehicle. According

to the victim, Walker said she was at a local Walmart. After the initial call,

the victim continued to call and text Walker, but his calls and texts went

unanswered. Nearly two weeks later, the victim’s vehicle was discovered by

police at an apartment complex in Austin, Texas. Walker was subsequently

arrested and on July 13, 2023, was charged with theft of a motor vehicle in

violation of La. R.S. 14:67.26 (C)(2).

On August 10, 2023, Walker appeared in court with her attorney and

pled guilty. There was no agreed-upon sentence in the plea arrangement and

a presentence investigation (“PSI”) report was ordered by the court.1 On

November 9, 2023, the trial court sentenced Walker to 5 years,

imprisonment at hard labor with all but 1 year suspended, and 2 years of

active supervised probation. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion

for reconsideration of sentence on November 16, 2023. This appeal

followed.

DISCUSSION

Walker argues that her sentence is excessive and unconstitutionally

harsh and there was no evidence that she would respond more positively if

she were placed on probation for two years after serving a 1-year prison

sentence. She further asserts that the victim in this case suffered no

economic loss, and her 1-year period of imprisonment is a sufficient

deterrent to any further crimes. Walker claims that her sentence makes no

reasonable contribution to acceptable penal goals and asks this court to

vacate the probated portion of her sentence.

The state argues that Walker received less than a fifth of the

maximum sentence. According to La. R.S. 14:67.26 (C)(2), the maximum

sentence for theft of a motor vehicle is ten years. Additionally, the state

argues that Walker has prior convictions in the state of Texas, including a

misdemeanor conviction for assault and a conviction for unauthorized use of

a motor vehicle just two months prior to the instant conviction. Lastly, the

state asserts that any lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the

crime.

The presentence investigation report shows that in 2018, Walker was charged
1

with stalking but was ultimately sent through diversion and the charged was dismissed.
In 2022, she had a misdemeanor conviction of assault, and in 2023, she had a felony
conviction of unauthorized use of a vehicle. All previous charges were in the state of
Texas.
2

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.

Dowles, 54,483 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/25/22), 339 So. 3d 749; State v. Vanhorn,

52,583 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/19), 268 So. 3d 357, writ denied, 20-00745 (La.

11/19/19) 282 So. 3d 1065. First, the record must show that the trial court

took cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. Cr. C. P. 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.

To assess a claim that a sentence violates La. Const. art. I, § 20, the

appellate court must determine if the sentence is grossly disproportionate 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. 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 to

impose a sentence 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, 03-3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So. 2d 7. On review, an appellate
3

court does not determine whether another sentence may have been more

appropriate, but whether the trial court abused its discretion. State v.

Gaines, 54,383 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/22/23), 358 So. 3d 194, writ denied, 23-

00363 (La. 6/21/23), 362 So. 3d 428; State v. Tubbs, 52, 417 (La. App. 2

Cir. 11/20/19), 285 So. 3d 536, writ denied, 20-00307 (La. 7/31/20), 300 So.

3d 404, on recons., 20-00307 (La. 9/8/20), 301 So. 3d 30, writ denied, 20-

00307 (La. 9/8/20), 301 So. 3d 30.

There is no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in the

present case. Only half of the maximum sentence was imposed on Walker,

which is appropriate given the rapid progression in which Walker was

convicted of two felonies involving the use and taking of vehicles that did

not belong to her. Walker contends there is no evidence that she would be

more likely to commit further crimes if she were not monitored on probation

after her imprisonment. There is, however, more than enough evidence to

suggest that Walker is inclined to commit such acts without such

monitoring. Walker was 22 years old at the time of her sentencing.

This court is of the belief that Walker could further benefit from

probation after serving 1 year in prison as a rehabilitative measure due to her

young age and her propensity for using and taking vehicles that do not

belong to her. The trial court considered Walker’s youth but balanced that

factor against the severity of the offense and the pattern of similar offenses

exhibited by her. Prior to imposing the sentence on Walker, the trial court

considered the guidelines of Article 894.1 and the PSI submitted to the court

on Walker’s behalf. While pointing out that Walker had a slew of other

charges, albeit in a different state, the trial court noted that in addition to the

conviction in the present case for theft of a motor vehicle, Walker had a
4

prior felony conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The trial

court thoroughly reviewed and applied the appropriate sentencing factors.

Based on the record, the sentence imposed does not shock the sense of

justice. Thus, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion.

CONCLUSION

Walker’s conviction and sentence of 5 years imprisonment at hard

labor with all but 1 year suspended, and 2 years of active supervised

probation is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

5