State of Louisiana v. Jamie Francisco

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-881

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JAMIE FRANCISCO

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 151,676-B
HONORABLE WILLIAM J. BENNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Angelo J. Piazza, III
Post Office Box 429
Marksville, Louisiana 71351
(318) 253-6423
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Jamie Francisco

Charles A. Riddle, III
District Attorney – Twelfth Judicial District
Anthony F. Salario – Assistant District Attorney
Post Office Box 503
Marksville, Louisiana 71351
(318) 240-7123
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

GENOVESE, Judge.

In this criminal case, Defendant, Jamie Francisco, appeals his second degree

battery conviction and sentence, alleging insufficiency of the evidence and

excessiveness of the sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm both Defendant’s

conviction and his sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 26, 2009, Defendant physically assaulted his girlfriend, Melissa Frugé

(Melissa). As a result of the assault, Melissa was bruised about her body and suffered

a broken rib. She was also rendered unconscious for a brief period of time.

On August 11, 2009, Defendant was charged by bill of information with second

degree battery, a violation of La.R.S. 14:34.1. Following a bench trial, Defendant

was found guilty as charged on April 13, 2010, and was sentenced on April 27, 2010,

to five years at hard labor with credit for time served. Defendant filed a pro se

motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied without a hearing on May 18, 2010.

Defendant is now before this court on appeal, asserting that there was

insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that his sentence is excessive.

Defendant has also requested an error patent review of his case regarding any

irregularities that represent a constitutional violation of his rights to a fair trial and

sentence.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for

errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find that there

are no errors patent.

INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE CLAIM

By this assignment of error, Defendant argues that the trial court committed

reversible error when it convicted him of second degree battery with insufficient

evidence. Defendant also maintains that the trial court erred in denying his motion

for a new trial and for reconsideration of his sentence.1

The analysis for a claim of insufficient evidence is well-settled:

When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the
critical inquiry of the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier
of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct.
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, rehearing denied, 444 U.S. 890, 100 S.Ct. 195,
62 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979); State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King, 436 So.2d 559
(La.1983); State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982); State v. Moody,
393 So.2d 1212 (La.1981). It is the role of the fact finder to weigh the
respective credibility of the witnesses, and therefore, the appellate court
should not second guess the credibility determinations of the triers of
fact beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of
review. See State ex rel. Graffagnino, 436 So.2d 559 (citing State v.
Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228 (La.1983)). In order for this Court to
affirm a conviction, however, the record must reflect that the state has
satisfied its burden of proving the elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.

State v. Kennerson, 96-1518, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/97), 695 So.2d 1367, 1371.

A “[b]attery is the intentional use of force or violence upon the person of

another; or the intentional administration of a poison or other noxious liquid or

substance to another.” La.R.S. 14:33. Second degree battery is defined in La.R.S.

14:34.1(A) as “a battery when the offender intentionally inflicts serious bodily

injury[.]” Pursuant to La.R.S. 14:34.1(B), serious bodily injury “involves

unconsciousness, extreme physical pain or protracted and obvious disfigurement, or

protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental

faculty, or a substantial risk of death.” As noted by this court in State v. Robinson,

549 So.2d 1282, 1284-85 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1989):

1
The denial of Defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence is discussed in his excessive
sentence claim.

2

To convict a person of second-degree battery, the State must
prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the
intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another; (2)
without the consent of the victim; and, (3) when the offender has
specific intent to inflict serious bodily injury. State v. Fuller, 414 So.2d
306 (La.1982). Specific criminal intent is that state of mind which
exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired
the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act.
LSA-R.S. 14:10(1). Moreover, specific intent is a state of mind which
need not be proven as a fact, but may be inferred from the circumstances
of the transaction and actions of the defendant. State v. Fuller, supra.

On appeal, Defendant contends that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude

he is guilty of second degree battery beyond a reasonable doubt considering the

“scant” evidence at trial. Defendant complains of the following “inconsistencies and

acquittal evidence:”

1. Melissa’s abuse of the legal process against Defendant;

2. Melissa told Defendant of her whereabouts on the morning of the

offense;

3. Melissa engaged in a love-hate relationship with Defendant; and,

4. Melissa’s delay in seeking treatment for her injuries until the next

day.

Defendant concludes that Melissa was unreliable, untruthful, and manipulative.

Additionally, Defendant maintains that letters from Melissa to Defendant during his

incarceration clearly define her motive in fabricating the offense, i.e., if she could not

have Defendant, then no one else could have him. Also, the testimony of Jessie

Edwards demonstrates the level of her lies and deceit. Lastly, Defendant asserts that

the emergency room doctor could not connect Melissa’s alleged injuries to the

reported offense, and there was no evidence of unconsciousness.

At trial, Melissa testified that on June 26, 2009, she was walking to work and

3

stopped at Mary Phillips’s house to get a cup of coffee. She was “somewhat” dating

Defendant at the time, and, while she was at Mary’s house, he called her phone

several times and sent numerous text messages. Melissa eventually answered her

phone, thinking if she answered it, he would leave her alone. According to Melissa,

Defendant told her that he had something for her. Melissa replied, “[T]he ass

whipping you got for me I don’t want this morning.” She then hung up. Defendant

continued to call, but Melissa would not answer the phone.

Soon thereafter, Defendant arrived at Mary’s house in his car. Melissa stated

she did not have the slightest idea how Defendant knew where she was. Defendant

kept blowing his horn and telling her to come see. Melissa refused to comply.

According to Melissa, she already knew what Defendant had for her, “an ass

whipping,” and she did not want it—she was tired of it. Defendant then jumped out

of the car and told Melissa that if she would not come, he was going to come and get

her. When she did not comply, Defendant approached the house where Melissa and

Mary were sitting on the porch and told Melissa he wanted to talk to her. Melissa

told him no because he was going to hit her, and she was trying to go to work.

Defendant then entered the porch and began beating Melissa on the side of her

head and face. Next, Defendant caught her by the hair, dragged her off the chair, and

slammed her into the door frame of the screen door, knocking her unconscious.

Melissa testified that when she regained consciousness, she was on the ground by the

steps, and Defendant was kicking and punching her. He kicked her in the behind,

back, and side. Melissa assumed that Defendant put her in the car because, when she

“woke up,” she was in the front seat of his car. She was not able to get out because

Defendant had control of the lock.

4

Melissa stated that once she was in the car, she kept quiet. There was no more

violence while in the car. According to Melissa, they rode around for a couple of

minutes, and then Defendant took her home and made her bathe and change clothes.

He then took her to his house where he started “fussing” at her again about “this and

that.” Melissa testified that she was scared and that she had sex with Defendant,

although she did not want to. Defendant eventually dropped her off at home the next

morning. Melissa then called her aunt, who came over and called the sheriff’s

department. Melissa’s aunt also took her to the doctor because her side was hurting,

and she was having difficulty breathing.

Melissa identified photographs of her injuries. The photographs depicted

bruising and swelling of the left side of her face in the cheek area and bruising on her

left arm and leg. None of the photos depicted her trunk area, ribs, or stomach.

Melissa admitted that the injuries to her face were hard to see in the photograph, but

maintained that the swelling was visible “if you’d have seen it that day.” Melissa

reported that the pain in her ribs continued for about a month.

On cross-examination, Melissa admitted that she had recanted her allegations

regarding the offense. Melissa explained that she went to see Judge Bennett, told him

that her allegations were not true, and asked him to drop the charges against

Defendant. Melissa maintained, however, that Defendant forced her to tell the judge

that the offense did not happen. Defendant threatened to beat and/or kill her if she

did not recant her story. Melissa complied with Judge Bennett’s instructions to put

her statement in writing and take it to the district attorney’s office.

Next, Melissa was questioned about threats she allegedly made to Defendant.

Melissa denied ever threatening Defendant. In response to same, defense counsel

5

introduced a three-page, handwritten letter from Melissa to Defendant and asked her

to read it out loud.2 The letter was dated November 30, 2009, and was sent to the

Avoyelles Parish Sheriff’s Department where Defendant was incarcerated. Melissa

indicated in her letter that Defendant had hurt her, but she was going to be all right.

Melissa then wrote, “If I was dirty[,] I would sign them papers and testify against you,

and guess what, your punk ass gonna get to get [sic] 10 to 15 [years].” Melissa also

wrote:

so bye for now! And don’t drop the soap! B--ch Nigga! See you-n-da
courtroom[.] Was blind but now I see[—]2 broke ribs[,] 1 broke
finger[,] 1 broke phone[,] [and] a broke face[.] Pay back is a mutha
[sic]! Thanks 4 makin[g] me stronger and wiser[.]

Melissa was then asked a series of questions in an attempt to show she did not

fear Defendant and/or continued to have a relationship with him after the offense.

Melissa denied that she had been texting Defendant recently. She admitted, however,

that she did send him a text message when she learned that his mother had died.

Melissa maintained, however, that it was the only message she sent.

Melissa admitted to sending a text message on July 8, 2009, wherein she told

Defendant that he had to choose between her and the other women with whom he had

sexual relationships. She explained that the message was sent in response to

Defendant’s constant calls and text messages wherein he told her he loved her and

wanted to be with her.

Melissa was then questioned about a specific text sent on August 6, 2009, and

was asked to read the text from Defendant’s phone. Melissa first acknowledged that

the number from which the text message originated was her phone number.

2
The letter is filled with profane statements. Only the statements which might be construed
as threats to Defendant are addressed herein.

6

According to Melissa, the message, a chain letter from the internet, was sent to all of

her contacts, and she had no recollection of intentionally sending it to Defendant.

Melissa stated that she may have accidentally sent the text to Defendant.

Next, Melissa was questioned again about how Defendant knew she was at

Mary’s house. Melissa replied that she did not know; she might have told Defendant

that she was at Mary’s house, but she had no recollection. Melissa stated that she

could not recall several incidents from that day.

On re-direct examination, Melissa confirmed that after the offense, the text

messages from Defendant were constant, even when he was in jail. All she wanted

was for him to leave her alone. Melissa testified that Defendant beat her on two more

occasions after the instant offense, on July 25, 2009, and on July 29, 2009, prior to

the time she went to Judge Bennett’s office.

The State submitted into evidence a Petition for Protection from Abuse filed

against Defendant by Melissa on July 23, 2009. In the protective order under “Past

incidents,” which she read aloud at trial, Melissa described the instant offense as

follows:

On June 26th[,] we had broken up for two weeks[.] [O]n my way
walking to work, he kept calling my phone[;] I wouldn’t answer. He
texted me 32 times telling me to answer the phone [and] that I have
something for you, which was a beating. I stopped at a friend[’]s house
to drink a cup of coffee, he found out where I was and came there
bolstered [sic] his way into the house . . .[.]

....

He bolstered [sic] his way into the house, picked me up, threw me
at the wall, [and] knocked me out[.] [He then] picked me up, threw me
outside on the ground, and began punching me, slapping me, kicking
me[;] and he kicked me in my back right side and broke my ribs.

7

The testimony of Mary Phillips, the only witness to the offense, was consistent

with Melissa’s testimony and allegations. Mary testified that on June 26, 2009, she

was sitting on her porch when she saw Melissa walking down the sidewalk. Mary

stated that she had known Melissa for years. Melissa stopped to visit, and the two sat

down on Mary’s porch and began talking. During their visit, Melissa received three

or four phone calls from Defendant. Melissa kept telling Defendant to stop calling

and that she did not want to talk to him. According to Mary, Defendant asked

Melissa where she was, and she told him that she was at Mary’s house.

When Defendant arrived, he got out of his car, walked up to the porch, and told

Melissa to come see. When Melissa refused, Defendant opened the screen door to the

porch, walked over to where Melissa was sitting, and began beating her up while she

was still sitting in the chair. He then snatched her up out of the chair and began

dragging her from the porch. Melissa’s head slammed into the frame of the door, and

she hit her head on a small step. Defendant then dragged her off the porch and started

kicking her in the side. According to Mary, Melissa was unconscious for a few

seconds, and he continued to kick her in the side and all over, telling her to “get up

you b - - ch.” When Melissa regained consciousness, she pleaded with Defendant not

to kill her. Next, Defendant grabbed Melissa by the hair, dragged her to the car, and

pushed her into the car. The Defendant then drove off with her.

Mary called the police, and, while the police were still there, Defendant had

Melissa call her to instruct her not to press charges against him. Mary stated she was

afraid to press charges against Defendant because she thought he would then hurt

Melissa. Mary was worried about Melissa and did not see her again until a few weeks

8

later. Mary believed that the beating was bad enough that Melissa should have gone

to the hospital that same day.

Defendant’s recollection of the events on June 26, 2009, differed significantly

from the testimony of Melissa and Mary. Defendant testified that he contacted

Melissa that day, and she told him she was at Mary’s house. When he pulled up,

Melissa ran out of the house, “slipping and falling all over the place.” According to

Defendant, Melissa was excited to see him. She then got in the car, and they took a

ride. Next, they went to Defendant’s house and just relaxed. He denied having

sexual intercourse with her that day.

When asked why Melissa would fabricate such a story, Defendant stated it was

likely because she did not want to be with him or because someone else was involved.

Defendant denied hitting and kicking Melissa that day. According to Defendant,

Melissa started coming forward with charges after he broke up with her and began

dating Jacqueline Batiste. Defendant maintained that Melissa threatened to have him

thrown in jail. He stated she told him that if he would help her out with certain

things, such as money or a ride to work, that she would drop the charges. Defendant

maintained that Melissa’s allegations were lies and that he never asked her to lie to

a judge or a district attorney and report that the offense never happened.

On cross-examination, Defendant testified that he had been dating his

girlfriend, Jacqueline, for eight or nine years and that Melissa was just a friend.

Defendant did not tell Jacqueline he was having sex with Melissa, because they were

not married. Defendant continued to maintain that he never beat Melissa and that all

of her allegations were fabricated. With regard to Melissa’s broken rib and bruises,

9

Defendant contended that he never touched her and that she must have injured herself

when she came down the stairs and fell.

According to Defendant, Melissa and Tangela Crockett, another woman who

claimed she had been assaulted by Defendant, fabricated their stories because of a

“triangle.” Defendant explained that he was first in a triangle with Tangela. When

Tangela became unhappy with his way of living, i.e., working odd jobs with no steady

employment, he found another lady, Melissa. In between the years, Defendant was

“with” Jacqueline and was helping to raise her child. Defendant claimed that Tangela

and Melissa did not like the fact that he was trying to be a family man and take care

of his business.

Defendant added that Melissa and Tangela teamed up to help one another with

their respective cases against him to convince the trial court that he committed the

offenses. Defendant maintained that he was a victim of their conspiracy against him.

Next, Defendant’s first cousin, Jessie Andrews, testified on Defendant’s behalf.

Jessie stated that he had known Melissa his entire life. He also asserted that he knew

about her relationship with Defendant and that the relationship had been a good one.

With regard to the instant offense, Jessie testified that on July 30, 2009, the day

after Defendant’s arrest, he accompanied Melissa to Judge Bennett’s office to drop

the charges filed against Defendant arising out of the instant offense. Defendant was

incarcerated at the time. According to Jessie, when Melissa spoke to Judge Bennett,

she reported that she was just mad and angry at the time and that the offense did not

happen. Afterwards, Jessie and Melissa went to the bank with Defendant’s mother,

who withdrew $500 and gave it to Melissa to pay a bill.

10

On cross-examination, Jessie testified that if he could help it, he did not want

to see Defendant go to jail. Jessie also stated that he was not at Mary’s house on June

26, 2009, the day of the offense, and thus, did not see what happened. Jessie

maintained that the money given to Melissa by Defendant’s mother after Melissa

recanted the allegations against Defendant was not a bribe to get Melissa to drop the

charges. Jessie acknowledged that Defendant had been in trouble before, but denied

knowledge of Defendant’s six arrests for beating up women. Jessie recalled that

Defendant had gone to court regarding a girl’s allegations that he and his mother

jumped on her. Jessie denied any knowledge of Defendant’s reputation for beating

women and maintained that he never saw Defendant fight with a woman.

Jacqueline testified at trial that he was her high school sweetheart and her

future fiancé. She had known Defendant for eight years and had been dating him off

and on. Jacqueline stated that she did not know Melissa personally, but that she had

seen Melissa in the car with Defendant. Melissa never attempted to contact

Jacqueline but, instead, caused “confusion” with Defendant, which in turn affected

Jacqueline. According to Jacqueline, she had been present when Melissa stalked

Defendant and then called the police to report he was stalking her. Jacqueline denied

having any personal knowledge of Defendant’s involvement with Melissa on June 26,

2009. Also, Jacqueline was not with Defendant on the night of June 26, 2009.

Caprice Dixon was called by Defendant as a character witness. Caprice

testified that she knew Defendant. Her relationship to Defendant, however, was not

established. Caprice indicated that she was not present at Mary’s house when the

offense occurred, and she had no knowledge of the incident. According to Caprice,

Defendant did not hit women, and she never knew him to hit anyone. Although she

11

had heard that Defendant was involved in ten different incidents of violence with two

different women and had violated protective orders filed against him, Caprice

maintained that Defendant did not have a reputation in the community as someone

who beats women.

When asked if she had ever seen any violence between Defendant and Melissa,

Caprice stated that they had a love-hate relationship. One minute, they were in love;

the next minute, Melissa was pressing charges against him. Caprice had never talked

with Melissa about her relationship with Defendant. She was aware, however, that

Defendant had been arrested on multiple occasions based on Melissa’s allegations.

Caprice never saw Defendant strike Melissa.

With regard to the injuries Melissa sustained as a result of the offense,

Dr. Christopher Ritter, Melissa’s treating physician in the emergency room at

Avoyelles Hospital, was called to testify. Dr. Ritter stated that he examined Melissa

on June 27, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. During the exam, Melissa reported that she had been

assaulted on June 25th and June 26th. She stated that she had been hit with a fist,

kicked, pushed, thrown, and had lost consciousness when she was struck on June 26th.

Based on her history and his examination, Dr. Ritter had no reason to doubt that

Melissa lost consciousness during the assault. She suffered from pain in her neck,

back, face, chest, and both hips.

Photographs taken of Melissa at the request of police were shown to Dr. Ritter

at trial. Dr. Ritter found it difficult to make out the victim’s injuries in the

photographs. The photographs depicted the victim’s arm, mid to lower back, leg, left

cheek, and neck area, where bruising was noted. Dr. Ritter stated that the

photographs were consistent with Melissa’s history and his examination. X-rays of

12

her chest revealed a fracture of the ninth rib, which was consistent with Melissa’s

history. Dr. Ritter subsequently opined that Melissa’s injuries were caused by the

physical assault she described.

On cross-examination, Dr. Ritter testified that Melissa’s bruises did not look

several days older than she reported. He explained that as bruises get older, they

change colors, a process that is sometimes difficult to see in a dark-skinned

individual. According to Dr. Ritter, it can be difficult to pinpoint the location of

bruises in dark-skinned individuals. In a photograph of Melissa shown to Dr. Ritter

at trial, he did not see “greening” of the bruise associated with an aging bruise. As

such, Dr. Ritter did not characterize the bruise as an “old” bruise. With respect to her

photographs, Dr. Ritter did not find any facial lacerations or major contusions. He

also testified that he did not find any tenderness in the area of her face. The bruising

on Melissa’s arm was the size of a golf ball and was irregular in shape. When

considering the photographs alone, Dr. Ritter stated that Melissa’s injuries did not

look severe.

Based on Dr. Ritter’s experience, he did not find Melissa’s history of being

beaten two days prior to presenting to the hospital unusual. In fact, Dr. Ritter stated

that it was common. Dr. Ritter agreed that at the time she was seen, Melissa’s injuries

were not emergent. Although he frequently finds evidence of discoloration from a

punch or contusion, Dr. Ritter testified that such evidence is not always visible,

particularly in dark-skinned individuals. Dr. Ritter stated that rib fractures are

frequently seen without visible bruising in the area. Also, Dr. Ritter stated that

pulmonary contusions are rarely seen with a rib fracture and that a pneumothorax is

a rare complication of a rib fracture.

13

Although Dr. Ritter concluded that Melissa’s injuries were not emergent, he

felt it was appropriate for her to be seen in the emergency room with her history of

trauma and complaint of pain in the area of her ribs. He added that it was important

to rule out other more serious problems. Lastly, Dr. Ritter testified that a rib fracture

is consistent with trauma in an otherwise young and healthy person. According to

Dr. Ritter, a rib fracture does not result from a trivial event.

In finding Defendant guilty as charged, the trial court provided the following

reasons:

BY THE COURT:

Well[,] what is uncontradicted is [that] on June 26th, 2009[,]
Melissa Frugé walked about two or three miles from her home on
Mayeaux Road to the Spirit store in Marksville to pay a utility bill.
Then[, she] was walking towards work down Martin Luther Kind [sic]
Drive a few blocks away from the Spirit station. She say [sic] her
friend[,] Mary Phillips[,] [was] on her front porch[ ] [and she] stopped
to have a cup of coffee with . . . [her] on her front porch.
Uncontradicted at that point, no question that’s where she was, that’s
where Ms. Phillips was[—]everything is rocking and rolling.

Ms. Frugé testifies that she had been receiving text messages and
phone calls from Jamie Francisco[.] [S]he not only said it today in
court, she said it the day she filed the charges, [and] she said it a month
later when she filed for a protective order when talking about past
incidents. Her story stayed the exact same all along about what
happened. And we have the testimony of Mary Phillips. She don’t [sic]
have a dog in this hunt. She was just there. She watched the event. She
saw what happened[;] she testified as to what happened.

You know what was said about Ms. Phillips bad [sic] to inpuine
[sic] her character. That she drinks, well nobody said she was drinking
anything at 8:00 o’clock on that morning other than coffee. And she
testified as to what she saw.

So what did happen? Well Jamie Francisco admits that Melissa
Frugé hurt herself, got hurt, [and that] she was hurt that day. He didn’t
take her to the doctor, they rode around all day[,] and they went to her
house, his house, [and then] went to her house to get clothes so she
would have for work the next day. [She] [d]ecided not to go to work
that day. Didn’t . . . going [sic] to go to his house that night[,] but he

14

said they didn’t have sex[.] [A]nd the next morning[,] although she has
her clothes for work, instead of taking her to work or letting her walk
two blocks from his house to where she works, he takes her three miles
back home to Mayeaux Lane. You talk about not make any sense.

After I heard the testimony of Ms. Frugé, Ms. Phillips, and the
doctor confirming that what he found on Ms. Frugé was consistent with
what she described as a kind of beating she received, I expected Jamie
Francisco’s defense to be she came at me, we fought, [and] I was
defending myself. I mean I was waiting for it[;] I was waiting for it.
Man[,] Judge, what happened was we got in an argument, she came [sic]
me, I was defending myself[,] and she got hit. But did he say that? No.
He said she was so excited to see me, they hadn’t been together for two
weeks, they were broken up, but she was so excited to see him [that] she
ran off the porch, . . . fell down the steps[,] and hurt herself. And that’s
what happened to her to break her ribs and cause these bruises. But he
was not concerned enough to take her to the doctor.

I mean the defense that was put forth[—]I mean you talking about
wild[—]this triangle that’s trying to get Jamie Francisco just didn’t
prove out to be anything trying to get Jamie Francisco.

It’s undisputed that Melissa Frugé was beat [sic] up on June 26th,
2009, had fractured ribs, [and] lost consciousness that meets the
definition of serious bodily injury in Revised Statute 14:34.1.

It is also clear[,] as the day is long[,] that force or violence was
used against Melissa Frugé by Jamie Francisco on that date
intentionally.

Mary Phillips witnessed it[.] [F]orget about what Melissa said[.]
[F]orget about Melissa[.] Mary Phillips saw the whole thing[;] she was
sitting right there. They called somebody in her house [sic] called the
police. But what happened with Melissa[?] [W]hy did she go with him
when he was pulling her hair and putting her in the car? Why did she
stay with him that night? I’ve been waiting for somebody to say it all
along[,] and Miché Moreau said it in her closing argument[.] [I]t’s the
classic battered woman syndrome. Why is she still writing him a
letter[?] [W]hy did she send him a text when Ms. Hazel died, saying she
was sorry[?] I mean this lady loved this man, at one point. She loved
him[,] and she wasn’t treated right[,] and that love didn’t just go away.
And this letter here, that letter’s nasty. And yeah[,] at that point, she’s
ready for him to get what he deserves for what he did to her that day[,]
and who knows, possibly some other days. But this is an overwhelming
not even close case.

Whereas the State has totally proved beyond any reasonable doubt
whatsoever that Jamie Francisco used for [sic] of [sic] violence upon

15

Melissa Frugé on June 26th, 2009 without her consent, inflicting serious
bodily injury[,] and accordingly, I find him guilty as charged.

Considering the testimony and evidence found in the record, we find that the

trial court did not err in convicting Defendant of second degree battery. Defendant’s

assertion that the evidence at trial was scant is not supported by the record. Melissa’s

recollection of the offense at trial was corroborated by an eyewitness to the physical

assault, both of which establish that Defendant intentionally used force and violence,

without Melissa’s consent, with the specific intent to inflict serious bodily injury.

Also, Dr. Ritter’s testimony, the medical records, and the photographs support

Melissa’s allegations that she was beaten and kicked by Defendant. Lastly, the trial

court found Defendant’s testimony was not credible, and it provided little to no

support in refuting Melissa’s claim.

With regard to Melissa’s credibility, notwithstanding the evidence that she

recanted her allegations of the offense before Judge Bennett prior to trial, the record

is void of any evidence to support Defendant’s contention that she abused the legal

process against him. As for the inconsistency in Melissa’s testimony regarding

whether or not she told Defendant of her whereabouts on the morning of the offense,

we find that this factual detail is minor and plays only a small part, if any, in

challenging the credibility of her testimony or allegations.

Additionally, the testimony of defense witness, Caprice, indicating that

Defendant and Melissa had a love-hate relationship, was only sketchy and lacked

credibility. It played no part in challenging the credibility, reliability, and

truthfulness of Melissa’s testimony. Defendant failed to establish the extent of his

relationship with Caprice and how she had any knowledge of his relationship with

Melissa.

16

Lastly, the letter from Melissa to Defendant while he was incarcerated does not

support Defendant’s claim that she had a motive in fabricating the claim. Nowhere

in the letter does Melissa state that if she could not have Defendant, then no one else

could have him. Despite Defendant’s assertion, the testimony of Jessie, his cousin,

does not show that Melissa was lying or was deceitful as claimed by Defendant. Not

only did Jessie have a vested interest in protecting Defendant, his testimony was not

credible, as noted by the trial court.

With regard to the evidence connecting Melissa’s injuries to the offense,

Dr. Ritter clearly indicated that the physical exam, the x-ray revealing a rib fracture,

and the photographs depicting bruises were consistent with the offense as reported

by Melissa. Although there was no physical evidence to prove Melissa lost

consciousness, the unrefuted testimony of both Melissa and Mary establishes that she

lost consciousness for a brief time during the assault—a fact Dr. Ritter had no reason

to doubt.

Also, Dr. Ritter did not indicate that there was no bruising in the area of

Melissa’s rib fracture. As noted in the record, Dr. Ritter stated that a rib fracture was

seen on the x-ray and that Melissa had tenderness in the area of the fracture. When

shown a photograph purportedly of Melissa’s thorax, Dr. Ritter was unable to

visualize any landmarks of the thorax to determine whether or not a contusion could

be seen in the area of the fracture. Even if there was no bruise in the area of the rib

fracture, according to Dr. Ritter, such an occurrence was not uncommon, especially

in dark-skinned individuals.

For the reasons stated herein, we find that the evidence was sufficient to

convict Defendant of second degree battery and that the trial court did not err in

17

denying his motion for a new trial. Accordingly, Defendant’s conviction is affirmed.

EXCESSIVE SENTENCE CLAIM

In this assignment of error, Defendant argues that his sentence is excessive.

In State v. Brandenburg, 06-1158, p. 28 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/07), 949 So.2d 625, 644,

writs denied, 07-538, 07-614 (La. 10/26/07), 966 So.2d 571, 573, this court stated:

The trial court has wide discretion in imposing a
sentence, and a sentence imposed within the statutory
limits will not be deemed constitutionally excessive absent
a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Evans, 97-504
(La.App. 3 Cir. 10/29/97); 702 So.2d 1148, writ denied,
97-2979 (La.4/3/98); 717 So.2d 231. This court, in State
v. Dubroc, 99-730, p. 22 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/15/99); 755
So.2d 297, 311, noted:

The relevant question on review of a
sentence is whether the trial court abused its
broad sentencing discretion and not whether
the sentence imposed may appear harsh or
whether another sentence might be 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). To constitute an excessive
sentence, this court must find the penalty
imposed is 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, therefore, it is nothing more than
needless imposition of pain and suffering.
State v. Campbell, 404 So.2d 1205 (La.1981).
The trial court is given wide discretion in
imposing a sentence, and a sentence imposed
within statutory limits will not be deemed
excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of
discretion. State v. Pyke, 95-919 (La.App. 3
Cir. 3/6/96); 670 So.2d 713.

State v. Boudreaux, 00-1467, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/4/01), 782 So.2d
1194, 1201, writ denied, 01-1369 (La.3/28/02), 812 So.2d 645 (quoting
State v. Dubroc, 99-730, p. 22 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/15/99), 755 So.2d 297,
311). “As a general rule, maximum sentences are appropriate in cases
involving the most serious violation of the offense and the worst type of

18

offender.” State v. Hall, 35,151, p. 4 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/26/01), 796
So.2d 164, 169.

The penalty for second degree battery is not more than five years, with or

without hard labor, or a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, or both. La.R.S.

14:34.1(C). As such, Defendant’s five-year sentence was the maximum possible

sentence he could have received. Defendant, however, was spared a fine.

At sentencing, Defendant asserted that his mother and father were deceased and

urged the trial court to give him another chance. Defendant maintained that he would

do “what’s right.” Defendant added that he had a lot of things he needed to take care

of since his mother passed away.

After reviewing Defendant’s extensive criminal history, the trial court

concluded that since 1998, he had been convicted of six felonies, including

convictions for felony theft, illegal possession of stolen things, unauthorized use of

an access card, and forgery. Also, he had been arrested numerous times on a variety

of charges. Since the time he was charged for the instant offense, Defendant had

three felony arrests for domestic abuse battery, two arrests for trespassing, one arrest

for aggravated battery, two arrests for violation of protective orders, and one arrest

for stalking. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that not only would a probated

sentence be an illegal sentence, considering the guidelines set forth in La.Code

Crim.P. art. 894.1, there was an undue risk that he would commit another crime

during any period of a suspended sentence. Also, the trial court found that Defendant

was in need of correctional treatment or a custodial environment and that any lesser

sentence would deprecate the seriousness of his offense.

Next, the trial court stated it had considered the aggravating and mitigating

factors set forth in La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1 in sentencing Defendant. First, the trial

19

court found aggravating that Defendant’s conduct during the commission of the

offense manifested cruelty to the victim. He knew or should have known that the

victim, a woman, was vulnerable or incapable of resistance and that bodily harm and

violence were involved in the commission of the offense. Lastly, the trial court stated

that it could not find any mitigating circumstances that applied to Defendant’s

conduct in the offense.

In support of his excessive sentence claim, Defendant refers to State v. Tisby,

33,591 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/21/00), 764 So.2d 209, writ denied, 00-2236 (La. 6/1/01),

793 So.2d 181, wherein the defendant was convicted of second degree battery and

sentenced to two and one-half years at hard labor. The defendant and his girlfriend

were guests at a barbeque when the defendant forcibly removed his girlfriend from

the gathering and took her home. Afterwards, the victim went to the defendant’s

house to check on the defendant’s girlfriend. When the victim tried to enter the

house, the defendant swung a sling blade at him, cutting him across the face. At

sentencing, the trial court noted the defendant’s criminal history, which included a

conviction for simple robbery, reduced by plea agreement from a first degree robbery

charge, and convictions for driving while intoxicated. Also, the forty-year-old

defendant was the father of three children and a high school graduate who had served

three years in the military. The sentence was affirmed on appeal.

However, this court has affirmed the maximum five-year sentence for second

degree battery in similar cases. Most recently, in State v. Thomas, 08-1280 (La.App.

3 Cir. 4/1/09), 7 So.3d 802, the defendant was involved in a physical altercation with

the victim and stabbed him in the neck and twice in the back with a knife. On appeal,

the court found that the sentence was not excessive, considering the defendant’s

20

criminal history as a second felony offender. He also had four misdemeanor

convictions and approximately twenty-eight separate encounters with law

enforcement agencies, fifteen of which were classified as crimes against a person.

The court also found that the evidence supported the greater charged offense of

aggravated battery and that a subsequent jailhouse fight wherein the defendant beat

the victim demonstrated a patent lack of remorse.

In State v. Hopkins, 96-1063 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/97), 692 So.2d 538, the

defendant received the maximum sentence and was fined $2,000 after his conviction

of second-degree battery. The defendant was involved in an argument with the victim

and beat her on her bare buttocks with a thick branch, leaving a four-inch bruise. In

affirming the sentence on appeal, this court found that the evidence supported the

greater charged offense of aggravated battery. No other aggravating or mitigating

factors were addressed on appeal.

Considering the brutal beating of the victim in the instant case and Defendant’s

significant criminal history, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion

when it imposed the maximum sentence. We likewise find that Defendant is clearly

one of the worst offenders, for whom a maximum sentence is intended. Also, the

sentence is commensurate with sentences affirmed by this court in comparable cases.

Accordingly, Defendant’s sentence is affirmed.

DISPOSITION

Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

21