State of Louisiana v. Matthew Clayton Stockton

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-1398

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

MATTHEW CLAYTON STOCKTON

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 82913
HONORABLE VERNON BRUCE CLARK, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX
CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Elizabeth A. Pickett,
and John E. Conery, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Edward John Marquet
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 53733
Lafayette, LA 70505-3733
Telephone: (337) 237-6841
COUNSEL FOR:
Defendant/Appellant - Matthew Clayton Stockton

Asa Allen Skinner
District Attorney – 30th Judicial District Court
P. O. Box 1188
Leesville, LA 71446
Telephone: (337) 239-2008
COUNSEL FOR:
Plaintiff/Appellee - State of Louisiana

Terry Wayne Lambright
Assistant District Attorney – 30th Judicial District Court
118 S. Third Street - Suite A
Leesville, LA 71446
Telephone: (337) 239-6557
COUNSEL FOR:
Plaintiff/Appellee - State of Louisiana

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

The defendant, Matthew Clayton Stockton, appeals as excessive a five

year sentence for simple burglary. We affirm the sentence of the trial court.

I.

ISSUES

We must decide whether the trial court imposed an unconstitutionally

excessive sentence of five years for simple burglary.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 4, 2011, Matthew Clayton Stockton and a co-defendant

broke into the home of Dewey Smith in Hornbeck, Louisiana, and stole twenty-

nine guns, gold coins, jewelry, and other items.

Mr. Stockton was charged on March 6, 2012, with aggravated

burglary, a violation of La.R.S. 14:60; simple burglary, a violation of La.R.S.

14:62; and theft of firearms, a violation of La.R.S. 14:67.15.

Mr. Stockton pled guilty to simple burglary and to the lesser offense

of theft of property over $500.00. The State dismissed the aggravated burglary

charge. After a pre-sentence investigation (PSI), the trial court sentenced Mr.

Stockton to five years on the burglary conviction and four years on the theft

conviction, with the sentences to run concurrently. Mr. Stockton filed a motion to

reconsider his sentence, which was denied without a hearing.

The State also filed a motion to reconsider Mr. Stockton’s sentences

and set restitution. At the hearing, the State advised the trial court that the victim

sought no further restitution and dismissed the motion.

Mr. Stockton now appeals his sentence for simple burglary. For the

following reasons, we affirm the sentence of the trial court.

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

―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. Salameh, 09-1422, p. 4 (La.App. 3

Cir. 5/5/10), 38 So.3d 568, 570 (citations omitted).

IV.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Mr. Stockton contends that his sentence of five years for simple

burglary is excessive. We disagree. This court has previously discussed the

standard for reviewing excessive sentence claims:

[Louisiana Constitution Article] 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

2

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, 01-838 (La. 2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 (citations omitted).

The penalty for simple burglary is imprisonment with or without hard

labor for not more than twelve years and/or a fine of up to $2,000.00. La.R.S.

14:62(B). Therefore, the term of imprisonment ordered by the sentencing court is

less than half the possible term.

Even though a penalty falls within the statutory sentencing range, it

may still be unconstitutionally excessive:

In deciding whether a sentence is shocking or
makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal
goals, an 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. 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.‖ 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. 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 (citations omitted).

―[T]he trial judge need not articulate every aggravating and mitigating

circumstance outlined in art. 894.1[;] the record must reflect that he adequately

considered these guidelines in particularizing the sentence to the defendant.‖ State

v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688, 698 (La.1983). ―[M]aximum sentences are reserved for

cases involving the most serious violations of the charged offense and for the worst

3

kind of offender.‖ State v. Quebedeaux, 424 So.2d 1009, 1014 (La.1982). ―The

appellate court shall not set aside a sentence for excessiveness if the record

supports the sentence imposed.‖ La.Code Crim.P. art. 881.4(D).

Here, the trial judge indicated that the PSI showed that Mr. Stockton

was twenty-six years old, in good health, and had a high school education. No

substantial grounds existed to excuse or justify his conduct, and no one gave him

strong provocation to commit the crimes. The victim sustained economic harm.

Further, Mr. Stockton had been convicted of felony possession of a

controlled dangerous substance (CDS) in Killeen, Texas on August 31, 2007. He

received a two-year suspended sentence and was placed on probation for five

years; that probation was revoked. On August 6, 2010, he was again convicted of

possession of a CDS in Killeen, Texas and was sentenced to fifteen months in jail.

Mr. Stockton also had three misdemeanor convictions, mostly related to controlled

dangerous substances.

Without the plea bargain, Mr. Stockton could have been sentenced to

one to thirty years at hard labor on the charge of aggravated burglary. La.R.S.

14:60. He could have been sentenced to a maximum of twelve years at hard labor

and a fine of $2,000.00 for simple burglary. La.R.S. 14:62. He could have also

faced imprisonment with or without hard labor for two to ten years, without benefit

of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, plus a fine of $1,000.00 for theft of

a firearm. La.R.S. 14:67.15. Thus, he gained substantial benefit from his plea

bargain.

The defendant in State v. Maricle, 08-678 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/10/08),

998 So.2d 909, was sentenced to five years at hard labor and a $1,000.00 fine for

attempted simple burglary and four years at hard labor and a $1,000.00 fine for

4

attempted theft over $500.00. The defendant had been previously convicted of

attempted molestation of a juvenile and was given five years of supervised

probation, which was revoked. This court held that the sentence for attempted

theft was an illegal one, but it affirmed the sentence for attempted simple burglary

based on the defendant’s second felony offender status and his previously

unsuccessful probation.

In State v. Polanco, 11-157 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/11), 66 So.3d 643, the

defendant pled guilty to two counts of simple burglary of a convenience store. He

was a twenty-nine-year-old first felony offender who had custody of four small

children. The victims preferred jail time for the defendant rather than restitution.

The trial court imposed a sentence of eight years on each count, with the sentences

to run concurrently. On appeal, this court noted a number of other cases where the

sentences exceeded those of the defendant:

[S]entences for simple burglary equal to Mr. Polanco’s or
greater have been routinely affirmed on appeal, including
cases where the defendant had little or no criminal
history. See State v. Coats, 561 So.2d 790 (La.App. 2
Cir.1990) (nine year sentence for first felony conviction);
State v. Morris, 98–236 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/16/98), 719
So.2d 1076 (twelve years for defendant without criminal
history); State v. Alsup, 42,636 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/24/07),
968 So.2d 1152, writ denied, 07–2252 (La.4/25/08), 978
So.2d 363 (eight years for first offense); State v. Johnson,
457 So.2d 732 (La.App. 2 Cir.), writ denied, 460 So.2d
608 (La.1984) (twelve years with no criminal history);
State v. Burns, 44,937 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/2/10), 32 So.3d
261 (twelve years, consecutive with other sentences for
separate offenses).

Polanco, 66 So.3d at 647.

Mr. Stockton is a third felony offender with a history of unsuccessful

probation. He received a very substantial benefit from his plea bargain. His

5

sentence is less than half of the sentence that could have been imposed. We find

that the sentence of five years for simple burglary was not excessive.

V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Stockton’s sentence of five years at

hard labor for simple burglary is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
RULE 2-16.3, UNIFORM RULES—COURTS OF APPEAL.

6