State of Louisiana v. James Vincent Adams

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

08-1565

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JAMES VINCENT ADAMS

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 74102
HONORABLE LESTER P. KEES, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, James T. Genovese, and Shannon J. Gremillion,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Hon. Asa A. Skinner
District Attorney - 30th JDC
Terry Wayne Lambright
Assistant District Attorney - 30th JDC
P.O. Box 1188
Leesville, LA 71446-1188
(337) 239-2008
Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana

Peggy J. Sullivan
La Appellate Project
P. O. Box 2775
Monroe, LA 71207-2775
(318) 387-6124
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
James Vincent Adams

Gremillion, Judge.

Defendant, James Vincent Adams, was charged by bill of information with

three counts of distribution of a schedule II controlled dangerous substance (cocaine),

a violation of La.R.S. 40:967(A). On June 10, 2008, the Defendant entered into a

plea agreement with the State and pled guilty to one count of distribution of cocaine,

with the State agreeing to dismiss the other two counts and suggesting to the court

that his sentence should be served concurrently with any other sentence being served.

The Defendant was sentenced to serve eighteen years at hard labor with the first two

years to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The

trial court also ordered the Defendant’s sentence to run concurrently with any other

sentence then being served.

The Defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied by the

trial court. The Defendant is now before this court on appeal, asserting that his

sentence is excessive. We affirm.

FACTS:

As set forth by the court at the sentencing hearing on May 11, 2007, the

Defendant sold cocaine to an undercover agent on three separate occasions. All three

transactions were recorded on videotape. On May 24, 2007, the Defendant was

arrested on three counts of distribution of cocaine.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

In his sole assignment of error, the Defendant challenges the excessiveness of

his sentence. This court has set forth the following standard to be used in reviewing

excessive sentence claims:

La.Const. art. I, § 20 guarantees that, “[n]o law shall subject any
person to cruel or unusual punishment.” To constitute an excessive

1

sentence, the reviewing court must find the penalty so grossly
disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock our sense of
justice or that the sentence makes no measurable contribution to
acceptable penal goals and is, therefore, nothing more than a needless
imposition of pain and suffering. State v. Campbell, 404 So.2d 1205
(La.1981). The trial court has wide discretion in the imposition of
sentence within the statutory limits and such sentence shall not be set
aside as excessive absent a manifest abuse of discretion. State v.
Etienne, 99-192 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99); 746 So.2d 124, writ denied,
00-0165 (La.6/30/00); 765 So.2d 1067. The relevant question is
whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not
whether another sentence might have been more appropriate. State v.
Cook, 95-2784 (La.5/31/96); 674 So.2d 957, cert. denied, 519 U.S.
1043, 117 S.Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996).

State v. Barling, 00-1241, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035, 1042-43,

writ denied, 01-838 (La. 2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331.

To decide whether a sentence shocks the sense of justice or makes no

meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals, this court has held:

[An] appellate court may consider several factors including the nature
of the offense, the circumstances of the offender, the legislative purpose
behind the punishment and a comparison of the sentences imposed for
similar crimes. State v. Smith, 99-0606 (La.7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501.
While a comparison of sentences imposed for similar crimes may
provide some insight, “it is well settled that sentences must be
individualized to the particular offender and to the particular offense
committed.” State v. Batiste, 594 So.2d 1 (La.App. 1 Cir.1991).
Additionally, it is within the purview of the trial court to particularize
the sentence because the trial judge “remains in the best position to
assess the aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented by each
case.” State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La.5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957, 958.

State v. Smith, 02-719, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/03), 846 So.2d 786, 789, writ denied,

03-562 (La. 5/30/03), 845 So.2d 1061.

The Defendant pled guilty to one count of distribution of cocaine, which,

pursuant to La.R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b), carries a sentencing range of two to thirty years

with the first two years served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of

sentence. Thus, the Defendant’s sentence of eighteen years is within the statutory

2

sentencing range.

The Defendant apologized to his family and requested leniency from the court

at the sentencing hearing. The trial court then discussed the factors set forth in

La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1, as follows:

The Court ordered a pre-sentence investigation. I’ve received it and
reviewed it in determining sentence today. Plus, I’ve also considered
the following factors outlined under Code of Criminal Procedure Article
894.1 as follows: Was there any economic harm caused to a victim in
this case? Well, not actually a victim as in the human being sense, but,
victim to society is always harmed in some fashion when one uses or
deals in illegal drugs. The Court found no substantial grounds exist that
would tend to excuse or justify his conduct. He acted on his own free
will and accord. He wasn’t provoked by anyone to do the act that he
committed.

....

You are forty-two now. Okay. Forty-two years old, he has six
children.

....

He’s married. He is in good health. His employment record
consists of him working usually in the construction industry as a
carpenter. He has worked as a cement finisher and a truck driver. He
has a twelfth grade education. He has a history of drug and alcohol
abuse. He has received treatment in the past at the Red River Treatment
Center in 1998. There is not enough information furnished to determine
whether or not he gained substantial income or resources from his illegal
activity.

Next, the trial court noted the Defendant’s extensive criminal history consisting

of approximately seven misdemeanors and three prior felony drug convictions. The

trial court informed the Defendant that as a fourth felony offender, he was not entitled

to probationary treatment and stated that “any lesser sentence would deprecate the

seriousness of the Defendant’s conduct and the offenses for which he has been

convicted of and being sentenced for today.” The court stated that the Defendant

was in need of correctional treatment in a custodial environment and that there was

3

an undue risk that during the suspension of any sentence or probationary period, the

Defendant would commit another crime. The court then sentenced the Defendant to

serve eighteen years at hard labor with the first two years to be served without benefit

of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

On appeal, the Defendant contends that his sentence is “unconstitutionally

harsh and excessive in light of the circumstances.” The Defendant asserts that at

sentencing, he showed remorse for his actions and argues that he has a substance

abuse problem and needs treatment, not imprisonment. He also argues that his

sentence will cause hardship to his six children, who rely on his income.

A review of the record reveals that the trial court reviewed the Defendant’s

presentence investigative (PSI) report and also considered as mitigating factors the

Defendant’s history with substance abuse and his family situation. Additionally,

eighteen years at hard labor is within the range of sentences accepted by Louisiana

courts for similarly situated offenders. State v. Franklin, 43,173 (La.App. 2 Cir.

9/17/08), 996 So.2d 387; and State v. Cross, 43,068 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/19/08), 982

So.2d 201, writ denied, 08-1243 (La. 2/20/09), 1 So.3d 492.

The Defendant is a fourth felony offender with an extensive criminal history.

He received a significant benefit from entering into a plea agreement in that two other

charges were dismissed, and his sentence was not enhanced under the habitual

offender law, which carries a mandatory minimum of thirty years at hard labor. See

La.R.S. 15:529.1(A)(1)(c)(i). Further, given the trial court’s considerations in

fashioning the Defendant’s sentence, the Defendant’s mid-range sentence is not

grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime nor does it shock one’s sense

of justice. Accordingly, the Defendant’s sentence is affirmed.

4

DISPOSITION:

The Defendant’s sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

5