State of Louisiana v. Brian Keith Guilbeau

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

KA 10-1316

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

BRIAN KEITH GUILBEAU

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. CR1204571.1
HONORABLE EDWARD D. RUBIN, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY HOWARD EZELL
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Billy Howard Ezell, and J. David Painter,
Judges.

SENTENCE AFFIRMED.

Michael Harson
District Attorney, Fifteenth Judicial District Court
P.O. Box 3306
Lafayette, LA 70502-3306
(337) 232-5170
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:
Brian Keith Guilbeau

EZELL, JUDGE.

The Defendant, Brian Keith Guilbeau, was charged by bill of information on

June 16, 2008, with second degree battery, a violation of La.R.S. 14:34.1. After

Defendant pled guilty, he was sentenced to serve five years at hard labor with credit

for time served on June 21, 2010. After his motion to reconsider his sentence was

denied, he appealed his sentence to this court asserting that his sentence is excessive.

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

FACTS

On the night of November 11, 2007, the Defendant and his two brothers,

Dustin Guilbeau and Derek Guilbeau, were at bar in downtown Lafayette. A fight

ensued in which Burtecin Sapta was injured. All three brothers were arrested and

charged by bill of information with second degree battery for the infliction of serious

bodily injury.

On July 22, 2008, Defendant entered a plea of not guilty. On three different

occasions, trial was continued at the request of Defendant. At a trial set for January

11, 2010, the Defendant was advised of his rights and entered a plea of guilty as

charged. A pre-sentence investigation report was ordered.

On June 21, 2010, Defendant was sentenced to the maximum sentence of five

years, with credit for time served, pursuant to La.R.S. 14:34.1(C). A motion to

reconsider sentence was denied by the trial court. Finding no errors patent, we turn

to the only assignment of error.

EXCESSIVE SENTENCE

Defendant contends the sentence imposed by the trial court is clearly excessive

under the circumstances of this case and without sufficient consideration of La.Code

Crim.P. art. 894.1. Defendant argues that he is a first felony offender and that the

1

trial court unfairly punished him, holding him responsible for his brothers’ actions.

He argues that he only became involved in order to stop the fight.

In State v. Bradenburg, 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), 812So.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
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

2

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

Neither in his motion to reconsider sentence nor at the sentencing hearing did

the Defendant raise the trial court’s failure to fully consider mitigating factors

pursuant to La.Code Crim.P art. 894.1. Accordingly, this argument cannot be raised

for the first time on appeal. See La.Code Crim.P. art. 881.1(E) and Uniform Rules-

Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3. However, we will review the Defendant’s sentence for

bare excessiveness in the interest of justice. State v. Graves, 01-156 (La.App. 3 Cir.

10/3/01), 798 So.2d 1090, writ denied, 02-29 (La.10/14/02), 827 So.2d 420.

Defendant contends that the sentence imposed by the trial court is clearly

excessive given the fact it was his first felony conviction. He argues that the trial

court heard his testimony that he was merely trying to stop the fight and acting in

self-defense. The Defendant claims that the trial court incorrectly considered this a

hate crime against a person of Turkish descent and in holding him responsible for his

younger brothers’ actions. The Defendant argues that maximum sentences should

only be imposed upon the most egregious offenders citing State v. Thomas, 08-1280

(La.App. 3 Cir. 4/1/09), 7 So.3d 802.

The trial court reviewed the pre-sentence investigation report and noted that

the Defendant had fourteen arrests. The trial court also observed that Defendant was

the oldest of the three brothers and that he was an instigator in the fight. The

Defendant also cites the pre-sentence investigation report and argues that the trial

court should have considered his alcohol problems, that he was Bi-Polar and

Schizophrenic and had been off his medications, and that he was disabled due to an

automobile accident.

In Thomas this court held that imposition of the maximum five-year sentence

for second degree battery was not excessive considering defendant’s “criminal

3

history, the fact that the evidence supported the original, greater charge of aggravated

battery, and the subsequent jailhouse fight which demonstrate[d] a patent lack of

remorse.” Id. at 806.

We have reviewed the pre-sentence investigation report relied on by the trial

court and Defendant in his brief. The pre-sentence investigation report indicates that

Defendant has an extensive and long history with fighting and that this incident was

especially disturbing. We agree with the trial court that Defendant was deserving of

the maximum penalty of five years.

SENTENCE AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules -
Courts of Appeal. Rule 2-16.3.

4