State of Louisiana v. Wilfred Lee Edwards

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-933

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

WILFRED LEE EDWARDS

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 27284-10
HONORABLE DAVID KENT SAVOIE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, Shannon J. Gremillion, and John E. Conery,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

John F. DeRosier
District Attorney, Fourteenth Judicial District Court
Karen C. McLellan
Assistant District Attorney
P. O. Box 3206
Lake Charles, LA 70602-3206
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Paula C. Marx
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 80006
Lafayette, LA 70598-0006
(337) 991-9757
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Wilfred Lee Edwards

GREMILLION, Judge.

Defendant, Wilfred Lee Edwards, plead guilty to the manslaughter of

Aldwin Smith, a violation of La.R.S. 14:31. At the guilty plea hearing the State

recited these facts to support the plea:

Between June 17th, 2010, and June 18th, 2010, the defendant
shot and killed Aldwin Smith. The two had been arguing during the
night of June 17th. Edwards had accused Smith of wrongfully selling
a handgun which belonged to him or stealing it from him. As the
night went on, the argument became more intense. At one point
Edwards pushed Smith down, as they argued, in Smith’s bedroom.
Smith was somewhat disabled. He had had major back surgery, and
he walked with a cane. He was 53 years old.

At one point Edwards leaves Smith’s room, walks to the
kitchen – and he is cursing all the way to the kitchen – he grabs a
knife, saying he was going to hurt Smith with it. One of the ladies
there tried to stop him. He said he would hurt her if she didn’t get out
of the way.

Went back in the room, and then everybody in the house heard
a couple of gunshots. Edwards then runs out of the house, yelling that
he had shot Aldwin Smith – they called him “Red” – and that he
thought he was dead. And they all leave the area.

When the sheriff’s office gets there, they find that Edwards had
shot [Smith] once in the chest, left chest area, and once in the back of
his left thigh. After Edwards was picked up, he gave a statement and
pretty much said exactly what the witnesses had said, except that
when he returned to Smith’s room – and they were they only two in
the room – Smith had a gun in his hand and was pointing at him. He
said that he dropped the knife that he had and dove at the gun, took
the gun from Smith, pointed the gun at him and fired at him one time.

Now, according to all that were present, there were two shots;
and the autopsy revealed there were actually two shots that entered the
body of Aldwin Smith.

....

[A]ll of the witnesses there said they had never seen Wilfred Edwards
as upset or mad or angry as he was that night, that he pretty much had
just lost it.

The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years at hard labor

without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Defendant filed a

motion to reconsider his sentence. But, the motion did not specify any grounds for

reconsideration, and the trial court denied the motion the same day. Defendant

now appeals his sentence, asserting it is excessive. It is not, and we affirm.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 881.1(E) states:

Failure to make or file a motion to reconsider sentence or to
include a specific ground upon which a motion to reconsider sentence
may be based, including a claim of excessiveness, shall preclude the
state or the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or
from urging any ground not raised in the motion on appeal or review.

This court has found that a claim of excessiveness of sentence was barred

when the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing

hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence. State v. Quinn, 09-

1382 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/12/10), 38 So.3d 1102, writ denied, 10-1355 (La. 1/7/11),

52 So.3d 885. We find, therefore, that Defendant is precluded from seeking review

of his sentence.

However, this court will, nevertheless, review Defendant’s claim as a bare

claim of excessiveness. Id. This court has set forth the following standard to be

used when reviewing excessive sentence claims:

La. Const. art. I, § 20 guarantees that, “[n]o law shall
subject any person to cruel or unusual punishment.” To
constitute an excessive sentence, the reviewing court must find
the penalty 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 is,
therefore, nothing more than a needless imposition of pain and
suffering. The trial court has wide discretion in the imposition
of sentence within the statutory limits and such sentence shall
not be set aside as excessive absent a manifest abuse of
discretion. The relevant question is whether the trial court
abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another
sentence might have been more appropriate.

State v. Barling, 00-1241, 00-1591, p.12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035,

1042, writ denied, 01-0838 (La. 2/10/02), 808 So.2d 331 (alteration in original)

(citation omitted).
2

We consider several factors including the nature of the offense, the

circumstances of the offender, and sentences imposed for similar crimes. See State

v. Smith, 99-0606 (La.7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501. We are mindful, however, that the

trial court “remains in the best position to assess the aggravating and mitigating

circumstances presented by each case.” State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La. 5/31/96), 674

So.2d 957, 958, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043, 117 S.Ct. 615 (1996).

Defendant’s attorney pointed out that the shooting occurred “late at night or

earlier in the morning,” and Defendant was “highly intoxicated.” Defendant “d[id]

not recall threatening the witnesses, although he does recall and admits to having a

knife and bringing it into the room.” He “d[id] not recall two shots being fired.”

Defendant admitted that he fired a shot after struggling with Smith over the gun.

During questioning by the trial court, Defendant agreed that he was angry

with Smith because Smith could not find a weapon “he was supposed to hold” for

Defendant. After the shooting, Defendant had someone call 911. Defendant “went

back in the house to check on Smith, and he passed out in [Defendant’s] arms.”

Defendant first said that he and Smith “were struggling for the gun . . . when

I twisted it out of his hand, I don’t know if one went off then or – I don’t know.”

However, the trial court asked, “It didn’t happen because you were struggling and

the gun went off accidentally? You actually shot him?” Defendant responded,

“Yeah” and plead guilty to manslaughter. Nevertheless, Defendant again said,

“We were struggling for the – for the weapon.”

At the sentencing hearing, Defendant apologized for what happened. He

stated, “if they cannot accept my apology, put God in their hearts and just forgive

me for what happened.”

The PSI indicated that Defendant was convicted of a drug charge in 1992.

The trial court noted that he had a previous aggravated burglary charge that the
3

State rejected. Further, he had a possession charge that the State dismissed in

return for the plea to the manslaughter charge.

Defendant claims his twenty-five-year sentence is excessive considering the

mitigating factors that he was highly intoxicated and admitted that he shot the

victim while struggling for the gun, and he had no intent to kill the victim.

According to La.R.S. 14:31, one convicted of manslaughter “shall be

imprisoned at hard labor for not more than forty years.” Thus, Defendant received

a mid-range sentence.

Defendant was guilty of a serious offense and his actions led to Smith’s

death. At sentencing, Defendant submitted a number of letters from his mother

and other relatives and members of his church. They all spoke of what a kind,

gentle man Defendant is. Nevertheless, the evidence also shows that Defendant

was extremely angry on the night of the shooting, and his anger led to Smith’s

death.

The trial court noted Defendant’s prior criminal history and reviewed the

information submitted by Defendant’s family and friends and the testimony of the

victim’s daughter. The trial court also reviewed the offense and PSI reports. He

had “no doubt that after a jury trial that the jury would have found [Defendant]

guilty of manslaughter.” The trial court believed the shooting occurred in “the heat

of passion” while Defendant was angry. The trial court further believed Defendant

was “in possession of a weapon within a particular timeframe that [he was] not

supposed to be in possession of a weapon, and [he] attempted to hide that by

giving that weapon to a friend.” The argument started because Defendant “didn’t

get that weapon back. So, [he] got another weapon; and [he] utilized that to shoot

and kill Mr. Smith.”

4

Police reports filed into the record as exhibits showed that Defendant and

Smith began an argument at the home, and another person at the home called

someone else to ask for a ride to another location. When the ride arrived, the

driver heard gunshots. The woman at the home ran to the vehicle as Defendant ran

from the residence, covered in blood. Defendant asked the driver to call for an

ambulance, then returned to Smith’s bedroom to check on him. Smith was

bleeding and gurgling. Defendant left the scene in the vehicle. The driver and

Defendant went to a convenience store where Defendant purchased two bottles of

beer and cigarettes. Detectives located Defendant’s brother, who ultimately led

them to a home where they found Defendant asleep on the living room sofa.

The facts of this case are similar to those of State v. Dukes, 10-1455

(La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/11), 66 So.3d 598, writ denied, 11-1368 (La. 12/16/11), 76

So.3d 1199. In Dukes, a disagreement between the victim and the defendant led to

pushing and shoving. The defendant followed the victim into the bathroom, and a

knife fight ensued. The victim sustained two equally fatal stab wounds and a

number of defensive wounds. The defendant left, and the victim died shortly

thereafter on the bathroom floor. This court affirmed the defendant’s twenty-five-

year sentence.

A bystander in a bar was shot and killed during an altercation among three

men in State v. McGhee, 10-583 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/8/10), 52 So.3d 318, writ

denied, 11-0062 (La. 5/20/11), 63 So.3d 973. Evidence showed that the jury

believed that the defendant pulled the gun from beneath his shirt. During a

struggle, it fired and struck the victim. The defendant, who had a prior conviction

for possession of cocaine, received the maximum sentence of forty years at hard

labor.

5

Defendant here received a mid-range sentence and also benefited greatly

from his plea bargain. The State dropped a possession of cocaine charge and

agreed not to charge Defendant as a habitual offender. While Defendant expressed

remorse for what he did, he also left his friend to die, went to buy cigarettes and

beer, and went to sleep.

Although Defendant’s assignment of error contends that his sentence is

excessive because he was highly intoxicated and had no intent to kill Smith,

Defendant fails to show how or whether his intoxication contributed to the killing.

Further, the lack of intent to kill is one element that distinguishes manslaughter

from the greater offense of second degree murder. La.R.S. 14:30.1 and 14:31. It is

the element that limits Defendant’s possible sentence to forty years at hard labor

rather than life imprisonment. Defendant’s twenty-five-year sentence is not

excessive.

DECREE

Defendant’s sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

6