State of Louisiana v. Charles Soileau

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-770

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

CHARLES D. SOILEAU

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF EVANGELINE, NO. 91385-F
HONORABLE JOHN L. VIDRINE, DISTRICT JUDGE

CONSOLIDATED WITH

13-771

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

CHARLES D. SOILEAU

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF EVANGELINE, NO. 91393-F
HONORABLE JOHN L. VIDRINE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

MARC T. AMY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, Billy Howard Ezell, and John E. Conery, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Edward K. Bauman
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 1641
Lake Charles, LA 70602-1641
(337) 491-0570
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Charles Soileau

Trent Brignac
District Attorney
Julhelene E. Jackson
Assistant District Attorney
Post Office Box 780
Ville Platte, LA 70586
(337) 363-3438
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

AMY, Judge.

The defendant pled guilty to multiple offenses in connection with several

burglaries in Evangeline Parish. In docket number 91385-F, the trial court

sentenced the defendant to ten years at hard labor on each count for the defendant’s

two convictions for simple burglary, five years at hard labor for his theft greater

than $500 but less than $1,500 conviction, eight years at hard labor for his theft of

$1,500 or greater conviction, two years at hard labor for his simple criminal

damage of $500 or more but less than $50,000 conviction, and eight years at hard

labor for his theft of a firearm (first offense) conviction. The trial court ordered

that all of the defendant’s sentences run concurrently with each other and with his

other pending cases, but consecutively to the defendant’s probation and parole

revocations.

In docket number 91393-F, the trial court sentenced the defendant to ten

years at hard labor for the defendant’s simple burglary conviction, eight years at

hard labor for his theft of $1,500 or greater conviction, two years at hard labor for

his simple criminal damage of $500 or more but less than $50,000 conviction, and

eight years at hard labor for his theft of a firearm (first offense) conviction. The

trial court ordered that all of the defendant’s sentences run concurrently with each

other and with his other pending cases, but consecutively to the defendant’s

probation and parole revocations.

The defendant now appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

The defendant, Charles Soileau, was arrested in connection with several

burglaries in Evangeline Parish, which resulted in multiple charges under several

docket numbers.

Docket Number 91385-F

With regard to the charges filed in docket number 91385-F, the record

indicates that the defendant’s offenses stem from the burglary of the homes of

Travis Lafleur and Joey Fontenot. At the defendant’s plea hearing, the State stated

that the defendant forced entry into the victims’ homes and stole firearms and

personal items, including jewelry.

The defendant ultimately pled guilty to two counts of simple burglary,

violations of La.R.S. 14:62; theft greater than $500 but less than $1,500, a

violation of La.R.S. 14:67(B)(2); theft of $1,500 or greater, a violation of La.R.S.

14:67(B)(1); simple criminal damage to property of $500 or more but less than

$50,000, a violation of La.R.S. 14:56(B)(2); and theft of a firearm (first offense), a

violation of La.R.S. 14:67.15(C)(1).

The trial court subsequently imposed sentence. For each of the defendant’s

simple burglary convictions, the trial court imposed a sentence of ten years. For

the defendant’s theft greater than $500 but less than $1,500 conviction, the trial

court imposed a sentence of five years. For the defendant’s theft greater than

$1,500 conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of eight years. For the

defendant’s simple criminal damage to property of $500 or more but less than

$50,000 conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of two years. For the

defendant’s theft of a firearm (first offense) conviction, the trial court imposed a

sentence of eight years. The trial court ordered that all of the defendant’s

sentences be served at hard labor and that they be served concurrently with each

other and with the defendant’s other current offenses.1 However, the trial court

1
The defendant’s appeals concerning the sentences imposed in docket numbers 91385-F
and 91393-F were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument. The defendant’s

2

ordered that the defendant’s sentences be imposed consecutively to his parole and

probation revocations.

Docket Number 91393-F

With regard to the charges filed under docket number 91393-F, according to

the record, the defendant’s offenses stem from the burglary of the home of Kent

Fontenot. At the defendant’s plea hearing, the State indicated that the defendant

broke into the victim’s home, damaging the front door. The State also indicated

that the defendant stole personal items, including firearms and jewelry.

The defendant subsequently pled guilty to simple burglary, a violation of

La.R.S. 14:62; theft of $1,500 or greater, a violation of La.R.S. 14:67(B)(1);

simple criminal damage to property of $500 or more but less than $50,000, a

violation of La.R.S. 14:56(B)(2); and theft of a firearm (first offense), a violation

of La.R.S. 14:67.15(C)(1).

Thereafter, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. For the

defendant’s simple burglary conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of ten

years. For the defendant’s theft of $1,500 or greater conviction, the trial court

imposed a sentence of eight years. For the defendant’s simple criminal damage to

property of $500 or more but less than $50,000 conviction, the trial court imposed

a sentence of two years. For the defendant’s theft of a firearm (first offense)

conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of eight years. The trial court

ordered that all of the defendant’s sentences be served at hard labor and that they

be served concurrently with each other and with the defendant’s other current

sentences in docket number 93241-F are currently on appeal in State v. Charles Soileau, 13-772
(La.App. 3 Cir. _/_/_), __ So.3d __.

3

offenses. However, the trial court ordered that the defendant’s sentences be

imposed consecutively to his parole and probation revocations.

The defendant appeals, asserting that his sentences are unconstitutionally

excessive.

Discussion

Errors Patent

Pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all criminal appeals are reviewed for

errors patent on the face of the record. We note no errors requiring action by this

court.

Excessive Sentence Claims

In his appellate brief, the defendant contends that his sentences imposed in

both docket numbers 91385-F and 91393-F are unconstitutionally excessive. The

record indicates that a single sentencing hearing was held for docket numbers

91385-F, 91393-F, and 93241-F. Our review of the record reveals that the

defendant did not file a motion to reconsider sentence nor did he orally object to

the sentences imposed at the sentencing hearing. Thus, review of the defendant’s

sentences is limited to whether the sentences imposed are unconstitutionally

excessive. State v. Casimer, 12-678 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/13/13), 113 So.3d 1129.

Sentences within the statutory sentencing range can be reviewed for

constitutional excessiveness. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979). In

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, a panel of this

court discussed the review of excessive sentence claims, stating:

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

4

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 (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 (La. 5/31/96); 674 So.2d 957,
cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043, 117 S.Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996).

Further, in reviewing the defendant’s sentences, the appellate court should

consider the nature of the crime, the nature and background of the offender, and

the sentences imposed for similar crimes. State v. Lisotta, 98-648 (La.App. 5 Cir.

12/16/98), 726 So.2d 57 (citing State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983)), writ

denied, 99-433 (La. 6/25/99), 745 So.2d 1183. In 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, a panel of this court observed that:

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.

The record reveals that the defendant and his wife testified at the sentencing

hearing, and that the trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation. At the time of

his guilty plea, the defendant was twenty-nine years old. According to the

defendant, he started using drugs when he was twelve years old and, after attending

several treatment programs, stopped using drugs when he was twenty-four years

old. The defendant stated that he began using drugs again after he was involved in

5

a “bad wreck.” The record indicates that the defendant is married, has three

children, and worked regularly until his 2010 conviction for distribution of

Schedule II narcotics. Further, although the defendant dropped out of school in the

seventh grade, he has since completed his GED.

The pre-sentence investigation ordered by the trial court indicates that the

defendant has a juvenile record and several prior adult felony convictions. In

2005, the defendant pled guilty to simple burglary and theft greater than $500. For

those convictions, the defendant was sentenced to three years hard labor on each

count, to run concurrently. However, his term of imprisonment was suspended and

he was placed on three years supervised probation. The record indicates that the

defendant successfully completed his probation and received a first offender

pardon. In 2010, the defendant was convicted of distribution of Schedule II

narcotics and was sentenced to ten years at hard labor. Seven years of that term of

imprisonment were suspended, and the defendant was placed on five years active

probation upon his release from incarceration. The defendant was placed on parole

in 2011. However, the defendant’s parole was revoked in February of 2012 and

his probation was revoked in March of 2012 on the basis that he remained

criminally active, failed to comply with substance abuse treatment, and failed to

pay his supervision fees.

Docket Number 91385-F

In this matter, the defendant pled guilty to two counts of simple burglary,

violations of La.R.S. 14:62. The defendant was sentenced to ten years at hard

labor on each count. Additionally, the defendant pled guilty to theft greater than

6

$500 but less than $1,500, a violation of La.R.S. 14:67. 2 The defendant was

sentenced to five years imprisonment for this conviction. The defendant also pled

guilty to theft of $1,500 or greater, a violation of La.R.S. 14:67. The defendant

was sentenced to eight years at hard labor for this conviction.

The defendant also pled guilty to simple criminal damage to property

amounting to $500 or more but less than $50,000, a violation of La.R.S. 14:56.

The defendant was sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment, two years at

hard labor. Finally, the defendant pled guilty to theft of a firearm (first offense), a

violation of La.R.S. 14:67.15. The defendant was sentenced to eight years at hard

labor for this conviction.3

Docket Number 91393-F

The defendant pled guilty to simple burglary, a violation of La.R.S. 14:62.

The defendant was sentenced to ten years at hard labor for this conviction. The

defendant also pled guilty to theft of $1,500 or greater, a violation of La.R.S.

14:67. The defendant was sentenced to eight years at hard labor for this

conviction. Further, the defendant pled guilty to simple criminal damage to

property amounting to $500 or more but less than $50,000, a violation of La.R.S.

14:56. The defendant was sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment, two

years at hard labor. Finally, the defendant pled guilty to theft of a firearm (first

offense), a violation of La.R.S. 14:67.15. The defendant was sentenced to eight

2
We note that the sentencing exposure and classifications in La.R.S. 14:67 were
amended by the legislature in 2010. See 2010 La. Acts 585.
3
Although the trial court did not state that the defendant’s sentence for theft of a firearm
was to be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, pursuant to
La.R.S. 15:301.1(A), the defendant’s sentence is deemed to contain those restrictions.

7

years at hard labor for this conviction.4

Simple burglary is punishable by a fine of not more than $2,000,

imprisonment with or without hard labor for not more than twelve years, or both.

La.R.S. 14:62(B). The defendant’s ten-year sentences are within the statutory

limit. We observe that, in State v. Burns, 32,904 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/1/00), 750

So.2d 505, the second circuit upheld a ten-year sentence for simple burglary where

the defendant had two prior felony convictions, including one for attempted simple

burglary, and had previously had his probation revoked. See also State v.

Stanfield, 10-854 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/19/11), 56 So.3d 428, writ denied, 11-266 (La.

6/3/11), 63 So.3d 1007.

Theft greater than $500 but less than $1,500 is punishable by imprisonment,

with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, a fine of not more than

$2,000, or both. La.R.S. 14:67(B)(2). Theft of $1,500 or greater is punishable by

imprisonment with or without hard labor for not more than ten years, a fine of not

more than $3,000, or both. La.R.S. 14:67(B)(1). The defendant’s five-year

sentence for theft greater than $500 but less than $1,500 is the maximum statutory

term of imprisonment. The defendant’s eight-year sentences for his two theft

greater than $1,500 convictions are within the statutory limit.

Maximum or near-maximum sentences are reserved for the worst offenders.

State v. Fontenot, 09-624 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/9/09), 25 So.3d 225. In State v.

Brown, 09-10 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09) (unpublished opinion), the first circuit

upheld maximum sentences for theft greater than $500 and attempted theft greater

than $500 where the defendant was a third-felony offender who, along with her

4
Although the trial court did not state that the defendant’s sentence for theft of a firearm
was to be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, pursuant to
La.R.S. 15:301.1(A), the defendant’s sentence is deemed to contain those restrictions.

8

accomplices, shop-lifted multiple items from a busy store and fled to avoid

capture.

Simple criminal damage to property amounting to $500 or more but less

than $50,000 is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment with

or without hard labor for not more than two years, or both. La.R.S. 14:56(B)(2).

For each of his two convictions for this charge, the defendant was sentenced to the

maximum permissible term of imprisonment, two years at hard labor. In State v.

Trahan, 608 So.2d 679 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1992), the defendant stole a car and

wrecked it, causing over $1,200 in damages. The defendant was sentenced to a

four-year hard labor sentence for his simple burglary conviction and a two-year

hard labor sentence for his conviction for simple criminal damage to property. The

trial court ordered that the defendant’s sentences run concurrently with each other

and consecutively to any other sentence. A panel of this court found that, because

the simple criminal damage sentence was to run concurrently with the simple

burglary sentence, there was no abuse of discretion. Id.

Finally, theft of a firearm (first offense), a violation of La.R.S. 14:67.15, is

punishable by imprisonment with or without hard labor for not less than two years

nor more than ten years, without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of

sentence, and a fine of $1,000. La.R.S. 14:67.15(C)(1). The defendant was

sentenced to eight years at hard labor for each of his two convictions for theft of a

firearm (first offense). In State v. Hawkins, 06-1599 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/2/07), 956

So.2d 146, writ denied, 07-1156 (La. 12/7/07), 969 So.2d 627, the maximum

sentence was upheld for a multiple felony offender who pled guilty to seventeen

counts of theft of a firearm and two counts of simple burglary of an inhabited

dwelling.

9

Based on our review of the record, we find that the defendant’s sentences are

not excessive. The defendant has prior felony convictions for simple burglary,

theft, and distribution of Schedule II narcotics. Further, the record indicates that

the defendant was released from prison in August of 2011 and that the offenses at

issue herein occurred approximately five months later. The defendant was on

parole and/or probation at the time of the instant offenses. The defendant also had

other charges pending at the time of his guilty plea. Although the trial court

sentenced the defendant to maximum or near-maximum penalties, we note that the

defendant received a significant reduction in the total maximum penalty because

the trial court ordered that his sentences be served concurrently with each other and

with his other pending offenses.

This assignment of error is without merit.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the sentences of the defendant, Charles Soileau,

are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

10