State of Louisiana v. Ronnie Prather

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-1284

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

RONNIE PRATHER

**********
APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, DOCKET NO. 153,786, DIV. B
HONORABLE WILLIAM J. BENNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********

SYLVIA R. COOKS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Sylvia R. Cooks, and
John D. Saunders, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Dmitrc I. Burnes
P.O. Box 650
Alexandria, LA 71309-0650
(318) 448-0482
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Ronnie Prather

Miche’ Moreau, Assistant District Attorney
Parish of Avoyelles
P.O. Box 608
Marksville, LA 71351
(318) 253-4551
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

COOKS, Judge.

Defendant, Ronnie Prather, was charged with Felony Carnal Knowledge of a

Juvenile, under La.R.S. 14:80, and with Indecent Behavior with a Juvenile, under

La.R.S. 14:81. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Defendant pled guilty to one count of

Felony Carnal Knowledge of a Juvenile and the charge of Indecent Behavior with a

Juvenile was nolle prossed. During the plea negotiations, a sentence could not be

agreed to by the parties, and the sentence was left up to the trial court.

At sentencing, the trial judge ordered Defendant to serve five years in the

Louisiana Department of Corrections, with credit for time served. Defendant filed

a motion to reconsider sentence, which was subsequently heard and denied by the

trial court. Defendant appeals his sentence, asserting the following assignments of

error:

1. The district court erred by basing Defendant’s sentence upon acts
other than to which he pled;

2. The district court erred by denying Defendant’s Amended Motion
to Reconsider Sentence.

ANALYSIS

Noting that the two assignments of error overlap, Defendant argues both

together. The primary argument espoused by Defendant is that he confessed to and

pled guilty to one act, and believed his sentencing would be based only upon that one

act. However, Defendant argues the trial court based his sentence upon multiple acts.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated, in pertinent part, the basis for

imposition of sentence:

I was told that there was one incident and one incident only. That
proved to be far from the truth. I ordered a pre-sentence investigation
report. The reason I did so is because Carnal Knowledge of Juvenile in
the law generally on the first offense, is a probation sentence. Because
what we generally consider carnal knowledge is you have a high school

-1-

girl with a boyfriend that’s more than four years older and they’re
having consensual sex. . . . In this case, it’s not a girl and boy, it’s a man
and a boy. . . .
And I learned it was not one act, I learned for three years there
were multiple acts, many, many acts even at times . . . the evidence in
this file of the district attorney’s office, the strong, strong overwhelming
evidence indicates that this went on multiple times, even when there
were times where you wouldn’t feed the victim unless he had sex with
you . . . one time you hit him because he refused to have sex with you.
..
Looking at the aggravating factors. . . your conduct during the
commission of the crime manifested deliberate cruelty to the victim
because of his young and tender age. . . you used your position or status
as an older boss man, the employer to facilitate the commission of the
crime . . . threats were made to the victim . . . and this offense resulted
in a significant permanent injury to the victim and his family.
. . . I do find that there is an undue risk that during any period of
a suspended sentence or probation that you would commit another
crime.

In his Motion to Reconsider Sentence, Defendant made the same argument he

now makes on appeal, i.e., that he deserved probation, or at a minimum, a lesser

sentence, because the trial court considered multiple acts even though he only pled

guilty and confessed to one act. After hearing testimony from Defendant and the

attorney who represented him at the plea and sentencing, the trial court denied the

Motion to Reconsider Sentence. The trial court gave the following oral reasons for

his ruling:

. . . if I were to grant that, that would totally disregard the provisions of
Article 894.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and totally disregard
the purpose behind any pre-sentence investigation report and simply
should say, alright Mr. Prater [sic] you had consensual sex one time with
somebody and you have no criminal record, so I’m going to slap you on
the wrist, give you probation and go about your business, but that’s not
how our law works and I was quite explicit in speaking with Mr.
Prather, to members of his family who some of which I know well and
it certainly displeased them when I sentenced Mr. Prather as I did. I
worked extremely hard studying this case from one end to the other to
make sure that what happened was what I thought was just, considering
what Mr. Prather was also facing had these matters proceeded to trial
and what could have happened versus what he ended up receiving.
Everybody was extremely up front with Mr. Prather . . . at least I was .
. . up front with Mr. Prather and in fact telling him that I have never as
trial judge in a blind plea sentenced a defendant to more time or worse

-2-

conditions that what was offered by the state and I was very explicit in
my reasons for ruling that I could have done so in this case, but did not
because I told him I wasn’t going to exceed what the state offered and
made comment in my reasons that this is one time that I thought the
DA’s office really had it right, that the five year sentence that they
suggested was a fair end to the multiple charges and multiple claims and
what could have been multiple trials and multiple psychological trauma
to both Mr. Prather and to the victim and to both of the families and the
additional cost to the state and to the defense and that this was
absolutely the right thing to do and if I would not . . . if I would have
sentenced him as he thought, he says I was going to sentencing [sic] him
and I’m not saying Mr. Prather’s lying about his belief, his belief . . . I
believe he thought in his own mind, hey, I did one thing and that’s all
I’m admitting to and that’s all I’m going to get punished for, but that
would totally disregard the statute, article 894.1 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and I can’t do that. I can’t sentence based on that and I
certainly did not tell Mr. Prather that I would disregard the law in
imposing sentence. . . . In any regard, the motion to reconsider is
denied.

Defendant revisits the same argument on appeal. We note no statutory or

jurisprudential authority is cited in support of his argument. The State disputes that

Defendant was ever told he would be sentenced based on only one act. However,

Defendant was charged and pled guilty to only one count of felony carnal knowledge

of a juvenile.

After a review of the record, we find, although it could be inferred that the trial

court based Defendants sentence on more than one act, we find any such error is

harmless. A five-year sentence for one act of felony carnal knowledge is appropriate

considering the facts and circumstances of this case.

“Whoever commits the crime of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile shall be

fined not more that $5,000.00, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more

than ten years, or both . . .” La.R.S. 14:80. Thus, the sentence imposed was a mid-

range sentence. The trial court noted that this was not the type of violation of felony

carnal knowledge of a juvenile that would support only probation. The trial court

also listed several aggravating factors: (1) Defendant’s conduct during the

-3-

commission of the offense constituted deliberate cruelty to the victim; (2) Defendant

knew or should have known the victim was particularly vulnerable and/or incapable

of resistance due to the significant difference in age and the fact that Defendant was

his boss; (3) Defendant used actual threats or actual violence in the commission of

the crime; (4) Defendant knowingly created a risk of death or great bodily harm; and

(5) the offense resulted in significant permanent injury to the victim and/or his family.

The trial court also noted there were two mitigating factors: (1) Defendant was a first

felony offender; and (2) his imprisonment would entail excessive hardship to himself

or his dependents.

We also note the following cases which support the five year sentence imposed

by the trial court. In State v. Fuller, 42,971 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/13/08), 975 So.2d 812,

the defendant pled guilty to one count of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile. Even

though the defendant was a first felony offender, the trial court sentenced him to eight

years at hard labor. The appellate court affirmed. In State v. Wyant, 42,338 (La.App.

2 Cir. 8/15/07), 962 So.2d 1165, the defendant, who was 25, pled guilty to one count

of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile, after having alcohol induced “consensual”

intercourse with a 12 year-old. The defendant was sentenced to the maximum term

of ten years, with two years suspended, and five years of active supervised probation

thereafter. The defendant argued he had no criminal history, and had two small

children to support. The appellate court affirmed the sentence. In State v. Watson,

41,094 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/28/06), 935 So.2d 333, the defendant pled guilty to one

count of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile. The defendant was a counselor in a

mental health facility of a correctional facility and admitted to having sex with a 16

year-old in her office. She was sentenced to four years at hard labor. In imposing the

sentence, the trial court found the defendant needed correctional treatment for the

-4-

purposes of both punishment and deterrence, despite the fact it was impressed with

the defendant’s lack of criminal history and academic credentials. The appellate court

affirmed the sentence.

Considering the above cases, and the noted aggravating factors listed by the

trial court in the present case, we find the sentence of five years at hard labor was

appropriate to the one count of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile committed by

Defendant.

ERRORS PATENT

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

errors patent on the face of the record. Our review has detected no errors patent, but

we do find the sentencing minutes and the Commitment require correction.

The sentencing minutes and the Commitment reflect that Defendant’s sentence

was imposed without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. The

sentencing transcript indicates the court did not restrict these benefits when imposing

Defendant’s sentence. When the transcript and court minutes conflict, the transcript

prevails. State v. Colton, 07-252 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/31/07), 968 So.2d 1239, writ

denied, 07-2296 (La. 4/25/08), 978 So.2d 364. Additionally, we note La.R.S. 14:80

does not require a sentence imposed for felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile be

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

We order the trial court to correct the sentencing minutes and Commitment to

delete the provision stating that Defendant’s sentence is to be served without benefit

of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. Additionally, the Commitment must

be corrected to accurately reflect that Defendant was convicted of felony carnal

knowledge of a juvenile rather than forgery.

-5-

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s sentence is affirmed. The trial court is

ordered to correct the sentencing minutes and Commitment to delete the provision

stating that Defendant’s sentence is to be served without benefit of probation, parole

or suspension of sentence. We also order the Commitment to be corrected to

accurately reflect that Defendant was convicted of felony carnal knowledge of a

juvenile rather than forgery.

AFFIRMED.

-6-