State of Louisiana v. J.J. N.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-1410

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

J.J.N.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, DOCKET NO. CR121163
HONORABLE JULES D. EDWARDS, III, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

OSWALD A. DECUIR
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, James T. Genovese, and Shannon J.
Gremillion, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

William T. Babin
Assistant District Attorney
P.O. Box 3306
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 232-5170
Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana

Jason W. Robideaux
Attorney at Law
412 W. University Avenue, Suite 202
Lafayette, LA 70506
(337) 291-9444
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
J.J.N.

DECUIR, Judge.

Defendant, J.J.N., was charged by bill of information with two counts of

molestation of a juvenile in violation of La.R.S. 14.81.2, one count of aggravated

incest in violation of La.R.S. 14.78.1, and one count of attempted sexual battery in

violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and La.R.S. 14:43.1. Defendant later entered a plea of no

contest to three counts of molestation of a juvenile and all other charges were

dismissed. After a presentence investigation, Defendant was sentenced to serve a

term of fifteen years at hard labor on each count with the three terms to run

concurrently. A motion to reconsider sentence was denied with written reasons. This

appealed followed.

In his sole assignment of error, Defendant requests review of the denial of his

motion to reconsider sentence. He contends the trial court’s ruling was manifestly

erroneous and constitutes an abuse of discretion or an error of law. He argues that

because his previous counsel failed to present any evidence on his behalf at the

sentencing hearing, the trial court did not consider mitigating circumstances and did

not individualize the sentence to this particular offender and these particular offenses.

Consequently, Defendant argues, the sentences imposed are constitutionally

excessive.

We disagree. The record before us includes a presentence investigation report

which showed Defendant’s first offender status and his favorable employment

background. At the hearing, defense counsel urged the court to consider that

Defendant had no prior criminal convictions, that he had been employed at Frank’s

Casing Crew for nine years, and that he was presently supporting two minor children.

The record reflects these mitigating factors were given due consideration at the

sentencing hearing.

The record also evidences the trial court’s compliance with La.Code Crim.P.

art. 894.1. Specifically, the court found there was an undue risk that Defendant

would commit another crime if on probation, explaining that “he would have an

opportunity and a desire to engage in similar conduct with people of similar ages.”

The court also determined that Defendant is in need of correctional treatment in a

custodial setting, as there is “no reason to believe . . . he would complete any sort of

sex offender treatment.” The court further found that a lesser sentence would

deprecate the seriousness of the crimes, that the criminal conduct at issue evidenced

deliberate cruelty to the victims, that Defendant used his position as a respected adult

family member to molest the young victims, and that there were multiple victims and

multiple events of molestation over a ten-year period. Finally, the court expressed its

dismay at Defendant’s offer of money to the victims in lieu of imprisonment as

punishment for his crimes.

We find adequate support for the sentences imposed in the reasons given by the

trial court and in the record as a whole. Accordingly, we find no error in the denial

of Defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence.

AFFIRMED.

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

2