State of Louisiana v. Joshua Jones

Judgment rendered December 17, 2025.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,719-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

JOSHUA JONES Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Bossier, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 249,615

Honorable Michael Nerren, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPEALS AND WRIT Counsel for Appellant
SERVICE
By: Remy V. Starns
Michael A. Mitchell
Mary E. Roper

J. SCHUYLER MARVIN Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

RICHARD R. RAY
CODY ALLEN BOYD
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before PITMAN, STONE, and COX, JJ.

PITMAN, C. J.

A jury convicted Defendant Joshua Jones of molestation of a juvenile.

The trial court sentenced him to serve seven years at hard labor. Defendant

appeals his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm his conviction

and sentence.

FACTS

On December 20, 2023, the state filed a bill of information charging

Defendant with one count of molestation of a juvenile in violation of La.

R.S. 14:81.2(A)(1) and (B)(1). It alleged that on or about October 26, 2023,

Defendant committed a lewd or lascivious act upon the person or in the

presence of A.S. Defendant pled not guilty.

A jury trial began on February 25, 2025. A.S. testified that in October

2023, she was 16 years old and had an after-school job at Pizza Hut in

Haughton. On October 26, 2023, she arrived at work at 4:30 p.m. for a five-

hour shift. A.S. was alone in the building with Defendant, her manager,

while other employees were delivering pizzas or on a break. He sprayed her

with silly string, which was an ongoing prank among employees. She

explained that “[w]e were kind of messing around and he just kind of

grabbed me and dragged me a little bit.” She testified that he then “kind of

started getting on top of me and dragging me to the freezer. . . . He was

putting his hands down my shirt. . . . His hands are in my bra, cupping my

breast.” She explained that she was scared and trying to process what

happened but thought Defendant’s hand slipped accidentally. A.S. testified

that Defendant helped a customer and then returned to where she was,

picked her up again and “more forcefully drug” her into the freezer. She

stated that “his hands are down my shirt again. I feel like every piece of my

body was being touched by him. His hands were everywhere.” She

described the second time in the freezer as “more aggressive,” that he

touched her nipples and that he told her to relax. She pushed away from

him, he let go and she ran out of the freezer to the front door. She noted that

both incidents happened within a span of five to ten minutes. She saw a

coworker in the parking lot, so she met him at his car and told him what

happened. He recommended that she call her parents and law enforcement,

which she did. After law enforcement arrived, she told them what happened

and then an officer transported her to the police station to give a statement.

At a later date she was interviewed at the Gingerbread House.1 A.S.

identified recordings taken from Pizza Hut’s security cameras on October

26, 2023, and the jury viewed this footage.2 A.S. identified Defendant on

the recording and in the courtroom.

Ofc. Allen Rothery of the Haughton Police Department testified that

on October 26, 2023, he received a dispatch regarding a possible assault at

Pizza Hut. He arrived on the scene at approximately 9:08 p.m. and spoke to

A.S. who was “visibly shaking and obviously upset.” He stated that A.S.,

whose birthday is July 24, 2007, was 16 years old at the time of the incident

and that Defendant, whose birthday is May 31, 1976, was 47 years old.

On February 26, 2025, the jury found Defendant guilty as charged of

molestation of a juvenile.

1
The jury viewed the recording of this interview in which she provided
information consistent with her trial testimony including that Defendant put his hands
down her shirt, touched the inside of her bra and cupped her breasts.
2
The recording shows Defendant and A.S. horseplaying with silly string.
Defendant picks A.S. up and pulls her into the freezer. They exit the freezer and return to
working. Defendant returns, picks A.S. up and pushes her into the freezer. They exit the
freezer and A.S. runs out of the area shown on the recording, away from Defendant.
2

A sentencing hearing was held on May 29, 2025. The trial court

noted that it reviewed the presentence investigation report. It discussed the

victim impact statement by A.S.’s father in which he stated that A.S. needed

therapy in response to the attack and requested that Defendant receive the

maximum sentence allowed. The trial court stated that Defendant had a

limited criminal history, i.e., that he pled guilty to simple burglary in 1994.

It detailed his family, education and employment histories, i.e., that he had

been married since 2001, he had six children and four grandchildren, he

graduated from high school and attended some college and that he worked in

the food industry as a regional manager. Defendant chose to make a

statement and recalled that he hired A.S. as a “present” for her 16th birthday.

He admitted to doing “a lot of horse playing” with employees but that he

should have been more professional. He admitted to taking “it overboard,”

stated that he took “accountability for everything” and wished to apologize

to A.S. and her parents. He noted that he has daughters and sisters and

would not want anyone touching them inappropriately. The trial court

responded that Defendant was not taking responsibility for his actions

because he categorized what happened as horseplay, which is not consistent

with the evidence presented at trial. The trial court also noted the damage

done to Defendant’s family and that three of his family members wrote

letters on his behalf. It then stated that it considered the elements of La. C.

Cr. P. art. 894.1 and found that a lesser sentence would deprecate the serious

nature of the crime. It reviewed the sentencing range and sentenced

Defendant to serve seven years at hard labor with credit for time served.

Defendant appeals.

3

DISCUSSION

In his sole assignment of error, Defendant argues that the trial court

imposed a constitutionally excessive sentence and that a five-year sentence

would be sufficient. He notes as mitigating factors that he only had one

prior criminal conviction, and there was a lengthy period between the two

offenses; that his family attested to his character; and that he accepted

responsibility for the harm he caused and showed remorse. He contends that

although his actions were reprehensible, they were not as egregious as those

in other cases. He explains that the actions in this case occurred during a

short period of time and were perpetrated against a 16-year-old, who is not

as vulnerable or helpless as a younger victim.

The state argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when

imposing the seven-year sentence. It states that the court had the benefit of a

presentence investigation report; that the court adequately considered the

guidelines of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and gave reasons for the sentence; and

that the seven-year sentence was closer to the minimum rather than the

maximum of the sentencing range. The state contends that the sentence is

not excessive due to the aggravating factors of the young age of the victim

and Defendant’s position of control and influence over her as her supervisor.

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). The

trial judge need not articulate every aggravating and mitigating circumstance

outlined in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, but the record must reflect that he

adequately considered these guidelines in particularizing the sentence to the

defendant. Id. The important elements the trial court should consider are
4

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

offense and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049

(La. 1981). There is no requirement that specific matters be given any

particular weight at sentencing. State v. DeBerry, 50,501 (La. App. 2 Cir.

4/13/16), 194 So. 3d 657, writ denied, 16-0959 (La. 5/1/17), 219 So. 3d 332.

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).

The trial court has wide discretion in the imposition of sentences

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

excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion. State v.

Abercrumbia, 412 So. 2d 1027 (La. 1982). 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, citing State v. Cook, 95-

2784 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So. 2d 957.

Whoever commits the crime of molestation of a juvenile, when the

victim is 13 years of age or older but has not yet attained the age of 17, shall

be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for

not less than five nor more than ten years, or both. La. R.S. 14:81.2(B)(1).

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Defendant to

a midrange sentence of seven years at hard labor and not imposing a fine.

The record reflects that the trial court complied with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1
5

and particularized the sentence to Defendant. It detailed the information

provided in the presentence investigation report, including Defendant’s

limited criminal history and the impact of the crime on the victim. The

sentence imposed is not grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of the

offense when considering the ages of Defendant and the minor victim,

Defendant’s position of influence over the victim as her supervisor and

Defendant’s lascivious acts upon the victim.

Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence of

Defendant Joshua Jones.

AFFIRMED.

6