State of Louisiana v. Christie J. Jett

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-1223

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

CHRISTIE J. JETT

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 82146
HONORABLE JOHN C. FORD, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

**********

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

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Paula Corley Marx
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 80006
Lafayette, LA 70598-0006
(337) 991-9757
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:
Christie J. Jett

Asa Allen Skinner
District Attorney, Thirtieth Judicial District
Terry Wayne Lambright
Assistant District Attorney
P. O. Box 1188
Leesville, LA 71496-1188
(337) 239-2008
COUNSEL FOR STATE-APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

PICKETT, Judge.

FACTS

At the time of the defendant’s guilty plea, the state established that on April

4, 2011, agents with the Vernon Parish Narcotics Task Force conducted a ―knock

and talk‖ at the residence located at 953 McConathy Road. They spoke with the

defendant who advised them that he had plants growing in his residence. Agents

obtained permission to search the defendant’s residence and discovered a closet,

made into a grow room, containing seven fluorescent grow lights with eight

marijuana plants. Agents also found a baking sheet containing hand-rolled

cigarettes, a quantity of marijuana, a pack of rolling papers, two metal pipes, a pair

of forceps, and a pair of scissors for marijuana use.

On October 4, 2011, the defendant, Christie J. Jett, was charged by bill of

information with the manufacture, production, and cultivation of marijuana, in

violation of La.R.S. 40:966(A). Pursuant to a plea agreement, on April 4, 2012,

the defendant pled guilty as charged in exchange for the dismissal of charges in an

unrelated docket number. The state also agreed not to charge the defendant as a

habitual offender. The defendant was sentenced on June 12, 2012, to serve seven

years at hard labor, with credit for time served, to run concurrently with any other

sentence. The defendant’s timely filed motion to reconsider sentence was

summarily denied on July 25, 2012.

The defendant is now before this court on appeal, arguing that his sentence

is excessive and that the trial court failed to provide sufficient advice as to the time

limitation for filing an application for post-conviction relief.

ERRORS PATENT

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

this court for errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record,

we find there are no errors patent except the one alleged and discussed in

assignment of error number two.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

By this assignment of error, the defendant argues that his seven-year

sentence is excessive for growing eight marijuana plants within one’s home for

personal use. The defendant stresses that all eight plants fit into one paper bag at

the time they were seized. He asserts that the facts presented are akin to simple

possession, a misdemeanor offense. The defendant also maintains that the

sentence makes no meaningful contribution to societal goals and is nothing more

than a needless imposition of pain and suffering.

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

did the defendant raise the mitigating factors of the small number of marijuana

plants he was growing or that the marijuana was for his personal use only.

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 have reviewed 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.

This court has set forth the following standard to be used in 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

2

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. State v. Campbell, 404
So.2d 1205 (La.1981). 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. State v. Etienne, 99-192 [p.5] (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99);
746 So.2d 124, writ denied, 00-0165 (La.6/30/00); 765 So.2d 1067.
The relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad
sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been
more appropriate. State v. Cook, 95-2784 [p. 3] (La.5/31/96); 674
So.2d 957, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043, 117 S.Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed.2d
539 (1996).

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

1042-43, writ denied, 01-838 (La. 2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331(first alteration in

original).

To decide whether a sentence shocks the sense of justice or makes no

meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals, this court has held:

[A]n appellate court may consider several factors including the nature
of the offense, the circumstances of the offender, the legislative
purpose behind the punishment and a comparison of the sentences
imposed for similar crimes. State v. Smith, 99-0606 (La.7/6/00), 766
So.2d 501. While a comparison of sentences imposed for similar
crimes may provide some insight, ―it is well settled that sentences
must be individualized to the particular offender and to the particular
offense committed.‖ State v. Batiste, 594 So.2d 1 (La.App. 1
Cir.1991). Additionally, it is within the purview of the trial court to
particularize the sentence because the trial judge ―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.

State v. Smith, 02-719, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/03), 846 So.2d 786, 789, writ

denied, 03-562 (La. 5/30/03), 845 So.2d 1061.

The penalty for production and manufacturing of marijuana is five to thirty

years at hard labor and a fine of not more than $50,000. La.R.S. 40:966(B)(3). As

such, the defendant’s sentence was slightly more than the minimum possible

3

sentence, and he was spared a fine. Additionally, the defendant received a

significant benefit from his plea agreement which resulted in a reduction in his

sentencing exposure from the dismissal of other charges and the state’s agreement

to forgo charging him as a habitual offender.

At sentencing, the trial court stated it had considered the sentencing

guidelines under La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1, the contents of the defendant’s

Presentence Investigation Report, and the fact that the instant offense was the

defendant’s fourth felony offense. The trial court concluded there was an undue

risk that during a period of a suspended sentence or probation, the defendant might

commit another crime. The trial court opined that a lesser sentence would

deprecate the seriousness of the defendant’s crime.

In State v. Insley, 04-1006 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/05), 893 So.2d 209, a case

factually similar to the instant case, officers noticed five marijuana plants growing

in plain view behind the defendant’s residence near a shed. The defendant

admitted the plants were his and he had been growing them. Following his consent

to search the residence, officers found marijuana and drug paraphernalia in the

home. The defendant was subsequently charged with cultivation of marijuana,

possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Pursuant to a plea

agreement, he pled guilty to attempted cultivation of marijuana, and the remaining

charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to serve four years at hard labor and to

pay a fine of $1,500.00, plus court costs. In affirming the defendant’s sentence on

appeal, this court noted he could have received up to fifteen years for the offense,

and he received a significant benefit as a result of his plea agreement.

In the instant case, considering the defendant’s sentence was near the

minimum possible sentence, the benefit received as a result of his plea agreement,

4

and his status as a fourth felony offender, we find that the sentence imposed was

not excessive. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO

By this assignment of error, the defendant argues that the trial court failed to

provide sufficient advice as to the time limitation for filing an application for post-

conviction relief. The sentencing transcript reflects the trial court informed the

defendant he had two years to file for post-conviction relief.

Pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8, the two-year prescriptive period for

filing an application for post-conviction relief begins to run when a defendant’s

conviction and sentence become final under the provisions of La.Code Crim.P.

arts. 914 or 922. As such, the trial court is instructed to inform the Defendant of

the correct prescriptive period of Article 930.8 by sending appropriate written

notice to the defendant within ten days of the rendition of this opinion and to file

written proof that the defendant received the notice in the record of the

proceedings. State v. Roe, 05-116 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/05), 903 So.2d 1265, writ

denied, 05-1762 (La. 2/10/06), 924 So.2d 163.

CONCLUSION

The defendant’s sentence is affirmed. The trial court is instructed to inform

the defendant of the correct prescriptive period of Article 930.8 by sending

appropriate written notice to the defendant within ten days of the rendition of this

opinion and to file written proof that the defendant received the notice in the record

of the proceedings.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

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

5