State of Louisiana v. Anthony J. Remedes

Judgment rendered July 16, 2025.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,363-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

ANTHONY J. REMEDES Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 389,078

Honorable Donald E. Hathaway, Jr., Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Douglas Lee Harville

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

COURTNEY N. RAY
TOMMY J. JOHNSON
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before PITMAN, STEPHENS, and THOMPSON, JJ.

PITMAN, C. J.

Defendant Anthony J. Remedes appeals as constitutionally excessive

his three sentences of 30 years at hard labor without benefit of parole,

probation or suspension of sentence, to be served consecutively, which were

imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of possession of pornography

involving a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13 years, violations

of La. R.S. 14:81.1. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

Defendant was charged with three counts of violating La.

R.S. 14:81.1(A)(1) and (E)(5)(a), pornography involving juveniles when the

victim is under the age of 13 and the offender is 17 years of age and older.

On April 24, 2023, Defendant pled guilty and admitted to purchasing and

possessing pornography depicting three victims, ages 3 to 5 years old, 4 to

5 years old, and 10 to 13 years old, being victimized and forced to perform

oral sex on adult males, including having at least two of the men masturbate

into the mouths of the two youngest children.

The trial court informed him that the sentencing range for his crimes

was a minimum of 10 years in prison and a maximum of 40 years without

benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. No mention was

made of whether the sentences would be imposed concurrently or

consecutively. Defendant was informed of all of his rights and those he

would be waiving if he pled guilty, and he acknowledged he understood. He

pled guilty to all three counts without entering a plea bargain agreement. A

presentence investigation report (“PSI”) was ordered.

On June 26, 2023, the trial court reviewed the facts in the PSI and

found that Defendant was 39 years old at the time of his arrest, he had

graduated from high school, lived alone, had never been married, had never

been employed and had a criminal history of two counts of cyberstalking

and one of pornography involving juveniles. It considered factors found in

La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and found there was undue risk that he would commit

another crime, that he was in need of correctional treatment or custodial

environment and that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of

the crimes. It also considered mitigating factors and found none but did find

aggravating factors. Having so stated, it imposed 30-year sentences for each

of the three crimes to which Defendant pled guilty, to be served

consecutively to each other without benefit of parole, probation or

suspension of sentence. It waived the mandatory fine of $50,000.

Defendant made no objection at the time of sentencing but filed a motion to

reconsider sentence days later, which was denied.

Defendant appeals his sentences and claims that the consecutive

nature of the three sentences causes them to be constitutionally excessive.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that the three sentences, which were 30 years each,

but which were made consecutive instead of concurrent, now total a 90-year

sentence without benefits. He contends that the consecutive sentences are

effectively a life sentence and are constitutionally harsh. He notes that even

though a sentence is within statutory limits, it can be reviewed for

constitutional excessiveness when the punishment is grossly

disproportionate to the severity of the offense or constitutes nothing more

than needless infliction of pain and suffering.

The state argues that a reviewing court may not set aside a sentence

absent an abuse of discretion. It contends that Defendant limited his sole
2

issue for review to the total sentence of 90 years and whether the total

sentence was excessive. The state asserts that the framing of this issue is

nothing more than an attempt to review the consecutive sentences as one that

is constitutionally excessive, when, in fact, the sentences were three separate

sentences of 30 years each for three separate crimes. Defendant was

informed at the time of the guilty plea that his exposure to incarceration was

10 to 40 years for each crime. It contends that the failure to assert as error

the excessiveness of the sentences on each separate count prohibits review

on that particular issue. It also contends that the proportionality of the

sentences is not briefed and is not subject to review. It argues that those

sentences are not excessive, and there has been no abuse of discretion in the

trial court’s decision to order the sentences to be served consecutively.

When reviewing an excessive sentence claim, the appellate court uses

a two-prong test. First, the record must demonstrate that the trial court

complied with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The trial court is not required to list

every aggravating and mitigating circumstance, but the record must reflect

that it adequately considered the guidelines of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. State

v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983). The trial court should consider the

defendant’s personal history and prior criminal record, the seriousness of the

offense, the likelihood that the defendant will commit another crime and the

defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049 (La.

1981). The trial judge is not limited to a consideration of the defendant’s

prior convictions but may properly review all of his prior criminal activity.

State v. Russell, 40,526 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/27/05), 920 So. 2d 866, writ

denied, 06-0478 (La. 9/29/06), 937 So. 2d 851. The trial court is not required

to assign any particular weight to any specific matters at sentencing. State v.
3

Quiambao, 36,587 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/11/02), 833 So. 2d 1103, writ denied,

03-0477 (La. 5/16/03), 843 So. 2d 1130.

Second, the appellate court must determine if the sentence is

constitutionally excessive. A sentence is excessive and violates La. Const.

art. I, § 20, if it is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime or is

nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and

suffering. State v. Bonanno, 384 So. 2d 355 (La. 1980). A sentence is

grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are considered

in light of the harm done to society, it shocks the sense of justice. Id. A trial

court has wide discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory limits,

and a sentence should not be set aside absent a showing of abuse of

discretion. State v. Square, 433 So. 2d 104 (La. 1983); State v. Black,

28,100 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/28/96), 669 So. 2d 667, writ denied, 96-0836 (La.

9/20/96), 679 So. 2d 430. 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. Williams, 03-3514 (La. 12/13/04),

893 So. 2d 7; State v. Free, 46,894 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/25/12), 86 So. 3d 29.

Regarding concurrent and consecutive sentences, La. C. Cr. P. art. 883

provides in pertinent part:

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.

Concurrent sentences arising out of a single cause of conduct are not

mandatory, and it is within a trial court’s discretion to order sentences to run

consecutively rather than concurrently. State v. Pittman, 51,602 (La. App.
4

2 Cir. 4/11/18), 244 So. 3d 830, writ denied, 18-0701 (La. 10/15/18),

253 So. 3d 1307. A judgment directing that sentences arising from a single

course of conduct be served consecutively requires particular justification

from the evidence or record. Id. When consecutive sentences are imposed,

the court shall state the factors considered and its reasons for the consecutive

terms. Id. Among the factors to be considered are the defendant’s criminal

history, the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, the viciousness of the

crimes, the harm done to the victims, whether the defendant constitutes an

unusual risk of danger to the public, the potential for defendant’s

rehabilitation and whether defendant has received a benefit from a plea

bargain. Id. The failure to articulate specific reasons for consecutive

sentences does not require remand if the record provides an adequate factual

basis to support consecutive sentences. Id.

The decision to make sentences consecutive rather than concurrent is

within the trial court’s discretion. State v. Farria, 412 So. 2d 577 (La.

1982); State v. Moss, 55,454 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/24), 379 So. 3d 285.

La. R.S. 14:81.1(A)(1) and (E)(5)(a), entitled Pornography Involving

Juveniles, states:

A.(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to produce, promote,
advertise, distribute, possess, or possess with the intent to
distribute pornography involving juveniles.
* **
E. (1)(a) Whoever intentionally possesses pornography
involving juveniles shall be fined not more than fifty thousand
dollars and shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than
five years or more than twenty years, without benefit of parole,
probation, or suspension of sentence.
***
(5)(a) Whoever commits the crime of pornography involving
juveniles punishable by the provisions of Paragraph (1), (2), or
(3) of this Subsection when the victim is under the age of
thirteen years and the offender is seventeen years of age or
older shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for not
5

less than one-half the longest term nor more than twice the
longest term of imprisonment provided in Paragraph (1), (2),
and (3) of this Subsection. The sentence imposed shall be
served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of
sentence.

The trial court correctly informed Defendant that the sentencing range

for the crimes to which he pled guilty was 10 to 40 years at hard labor to be

served without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. It

made no statements concerning whether the sentences for the three crimes

would be imposed concurrently or consecutively. The sentences of 30 years

for each incident are not constitutionally excessive and are within the

parameters prescribed by law.

The sentencing transcript in the record does not specifically contain

any statement specifying why the sentences were imposed consecutively;

however, the trial court thoroughly discussed all of the factors pertinent to

the imposition of sentence. It also discussed the factors under La. C. Cr. P.

art. 894.1, including Defendant’s criminal history showing two counts of

cyberstalking and one count of pornography involving juveniles in 2016. It

found there was an undue risk that Defendant would commit another crime,

that he is in need of correctional treatment or a custodial environment and

that aggravating factors applied. These aggravating factors included that the

offenses involved multiple victims and separate incidents for which separate

sentences had not been imposed. It also found no mitigating factors. It

stated that serious harm was done to the children who were the victims of

these crimes.

We find no abuse of discretion in the sentencing by the trial court.

The failure to articulate specific reasons for consecutive sentences does not

require remand if the record provides an adequate factual basis to support
6

consecutive sentences. The vile nature of the pornographic images

possessed by Defendant warrants the sentences imposed. Each individual

sentence is appropriate, and the imposition of consecutive sentences was

within the broad discretion of the court. For the foregoing reasons, this

assignment of error is without merit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the three convictions and three sentences

of 30 years each at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation or

suspension of sentence, to be served consecutively, imposed upon Defendant

Anthony J. Remedes are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

7