State of Louisiana v. Jeremy D. Howard

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

KA 09-281

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JEREMY D. HOWARD

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF BEAUREGARD, NO. CR-405-2008
HONORABLE STUART S. KAY, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Michael G. Sullivan, and Shannon J.
Gremillion, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

David W. Burton
District Attorney - 36th JDC
P. O. Box 99
DeRidder, LA 70634
(337) 463-5578
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee:
State of Louisiana

Richard Alan Morton
Assistant District Attorney
P. O. Box 99
DeRidder, LA 70634-0099
(337) 463-5578
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee:
State of Louisiana

Edward Kelly Bauman
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 1641
Lake Charles, LA 70602-1641
(337) 491-0570
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Jeremy D. Howard

GREMILLION, Judge.

The Defendant, Jeremy D. Howard, was charged with simple burglary of an

inhabited dwelling, a violation of La.R.S. 14:62.2; theft having a value greater than

$500, a violation of La.R.S. 14:67; two counts of simple criminal damage to property

where the damage was greater than $500, a violation of La.R.S. 14:56; aggravated

burglary of an inhabited dwelling, a violation of La.R.S. 14:60; armed robbery, a

violation of La.R.S. 14:64; illegal possession of a stolen firearm, a violation of

La.R.S. 14:69.1; and illegal possession of stolen things having a value greater than

$500, a violation of La.R.S. 14:69. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant entered

a plea of guilty to two counts of simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling and to first

degree robbery. The remaining charges were dismissed.

Defendant was sentenced to serve eighty-four months (seven years) at hard

labor for each count of simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling. One year of each

sentence was ordered to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension

of sentence. Defendant was further sentenced to serve one hundred eighty months

(fifteen years) at hard labor for first degree robbery, to be served without benefit of

probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. All sentences were ordered to be served

concurrently. Defendant contends his sentences are excessive.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court made the following comments:

You appear before this Court as a first felony offender. However,
you do have misdemeanor convictions for drug offenses for which you
were placed on probation and absconded. Your record does not support
additional probation. As it appears to have been an ineffective tool in
managing your criminal conduct.

The guilty plea in this case has been entered voluntarily without
agreement as to [the] sentence to be imposed. I have reviewed the
record in this case, particularly the incident and investigative reports
provided by the State to the Court in this matter, the victim’s statement,

1

and the presentence investigation report provided by the Division of
Probation and Parol dated November 15, 2008.

It cannot be ignored that the particular circumstances of this case
were a serious threat to human life. Your attorney has suggested that
you were no more culpable than your co-defendants. I disagree. It was
you, not they, who possessed the firearm in this case. It was you, not
they, that threatened the victim with the weapon to allow the three of
you to escape when caught in the midst of burglary and theft.

Your actions in this case could have easily resulted in death or
serious bodily harm to the victim. You have been given ample
consideration by the State in the reduction of the charges for plea and
the dismissal of several of the Counts on the Bill of Information.

There are pending warrants for your arrest from absconding from
your prior conviction supervision. It’s apparent that the admonitions of
the Court at the time of your sentence and subsequent probation have
had no impact on your behavior over the years. Therefore, prison time
is clearly appropriate in this case.

I hope that this substantial amount of incarceration will finally
impress upon you the necessity of modifying your behavior to comply
with lawful norms. In imposing this sentence which is less than the
maximum provided by law and available to the Court in this case, I have
considered your willingness to admit your law violation.

However, your behavior in this case with it’s [sic] threat to human
life and your criminal history simply do not allow the Court to grant you
more consideration than is given by this sentence.

Defendant pled guilty to two counts of simple burglary of an inhabited

dwelling, which is punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for not less than one

year, without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, nor more than

twelve years. La.R.S. 14:62.2. He was sentenced to seven years at hard labor on each

count. On one count, he had originally been charged with aggravated burglary, which

carries a sentence of not less than one nor more than thirty years at hard labor, and

pled guilty to the responsive verdict as part of a plea agreement. La.R.S. 14:60.

Courts have held that sentences of nine years and eight years for simple

burglary of an inhabited dwelling are not excessive. See State v. Durham, 43,558

2

(La.App. 2 Cir. 10/15/08), 996 So.2d 642; State v. Alsup, 42,636 (La.App. 2 Cir.

10/24/07), 968 So.2d 1152, writ denied, 07-2252 (La. 4/25/08), 978 So.2d 363.

Defendant also pled guilty to first degree robbery, which is punishable by

imprisonment at hard labor for not less than three years and for not more than forty

years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of imposition or execution

of sentence. La.R.S. 14:64.1. However, he was initially charged with armed robbery,

which carries a sentence of ten to ninety-nine years, and pled guilty to the responsive

verdict as part of a plea agreement. La.R.S. 14:64. Defendant was sentenced to serve

fifteen years.

Courts have held that sentences of ten years, eighteen years, and twenty years

were not excessive for first degree robbery where the defendant was initially charged

with armed robbery. See State v. Simton, 42,236 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/20/07), 961 So.2d

551, writ denied, 07-1562 (La. 1/11/08), 972 So.2d 1164; State v. McNeil, 42,231

(La.App. 2 Cir. 6/20/07), 961 So.2d 554; State v. Washington, 05-210 (La.App. 5 Cir.

10/12/05), 917 So.2d 488.

Further, as part of the plea agreement, five felony charges, including theft of

items having a value over $500, two counts of simple criminal damage to property in

an amount greater than $500, illegal possession of a stolen firearm, and illegal

possession of stolen property having a value greater than $500, were dismissed.

Based on the fact that Defendant benefitted greatly from the reduction of the

armed robbery and aggravated burglary charges, the dismissal of five felony offenses,

the trial court’s order that all sentences run concurrently, and the cases cited herein,

we find Defendant’s sentences are not excessive. Accordingly, this assignment of

error lacks merit and Defendant’s sentences are affirmed.

3

AFFIRMED.

4