State of Louisiana v. Travis W. Nolen

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-1000

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

TRAVIS W. NOLEN

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 084111
HONORABLE JAMES RICHARD MITCHELL, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********
ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE
**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, James T. Genovese, and Phyllis M. Keaty,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Annette Fuller Roach
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 1747
Lake Charles, LA 70602-1747
(337) 436-2900
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:
Travis W. Nolen

Asa Allen Skinner
District Attorney, Thirtieth Judicial District
Terry Wayne Lambright
Assistant District Attorney
P. O. Box 1188
Leesville, LA 71446-1188
(337) 239-2008
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

1
PICKETT, Judge.

FACTS

The defendant, Travis W. Nolen, was a passenger in a vehicle that was

subjected to a valid traffic stop. After the driver denied a request to search the

vehicle, a police K-9 dog was walked around the vehicle, and it reacted. As a

result, the vehicle was searched where, according to the record, “various items of

paraphernalia along with a glass-like substance” were discovered. The Louisiana

Crime Lab found the items tested positive as methamphetamine. The defendant

acknowledged that it was some old stuff that he had and engaged in a discussion

with the officer about whether or not he should go to jail for it. The defense

acknowledged on the record that “we don‟t dispute the factual recitation.”

The defendant was charged by bill of information with one count of

possession of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance, to wit:

methamphetamine, in violation of La.R.S. 40:967(C)(2), on December 4, 2012.

The defendant was also charged with one count of possession of drug

paraphernalia.

On April 3, 2013, the defendant pled guilty to the reduced charge of

attempted possession of methamphetamine. In exchange for his plea of guilty, the

state dismissed the remaining charge of one count of possession of drug

paraphernalia and agreed not to file any habitual offender proceedings against the

defendant. Defense counsel‟s “only recommendation . . . is that there‟s not going

to be any habitual offender proceedings filed against this defendant in exchange for

the plea.” The trial court ordered a presentence investigation report (PSI) and

ordered the sentencing for June 19, 2013. The trial court also allowed the

defendant to remain on bond until sentencing.

The defendant was sentenced on June 19, 2013, to serve two and one-half

years at hard labor and pay a fine of $2,000 plus costs of court. Defense counsel

did ask the court to take into consideration that the defendant is employed. The

defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider Sentence on June 25, 2013. The motion

was denied without a hearing or written reasons on June 27, 2013.

The defendant has perfected a timely appeal asserting only that the sentence

was excessive given his circumstances.

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.

DISCUSSION

The defendant‟s sole assignment of error is that he received an excessive

sentence in violation of La.Const. art. I, § 20 and the Eighth Amendment of the

United States Constitution. The defendant argues before this court the same

arguments articulated in his Motion to Reconsider Sentence. Specifically, the

defendant, in his motion to reconsider sentence, argued that the maximum sentence

for attempted possession of methamphetamine, two and one-half years

imprisonment at hard labor, is not appropriate in the instant case because it is

grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense, is an abuse of power, and

the trial court failed to consider mitigating circumstances.

The defendant pled guilty to attempted possession of a controlled dangerous

substance, violations of La.R.S. 14:27(D)(3) and 40:967(C)(2). Louisiana Revised

2

Statutes 40:967(C)(2) provides that for the offense of possession of a Schedule II

drug, the offender shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than

five years and may be ordered to pay a fine of not more than $5,000. The attempt

statute, La.R.S. 14:27(D)(3), provides that an offender:

[S]hall be fined or imprisoned or both, in the same manner as for the
offense attempted; such fine or imprisonment shall not exceed one-
half of the largest fine, or one-half of the longest term of
imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted, or both.

The defendant received a maximum sentence of two and one-half years and a

$2,000 fine.

This court has explained the analysis to be used in reviewing excessive

sentence claims:

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
La. Const. art. I, § 20 prohibit the imposition of cruel or excessive
punishment. “ „[T]he excessiveness of a sentence becomes a question
of law reviewable under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.‟ ”
State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276, 1280 (La.1993) (quoting State v.
Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 764 (La.1979)). Still, the trial court is
given wide discretion in imposing a sentence, and, absent a manifest
abuse of that discretion, we will not deem as excessive a sentence
imposed within statutory limits. State v. Pyke, 95-919 (La.App. 3 Cir.
3/6/96), 670 So.2d 713…The only relevant question for us to consider
on review is not whether another sentence would be more appropriate,
but whether the trial court abused its broad discretion in sentencing a
defendant. 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).

The fifth circuit, in [State v.] Lisotta, [98-646 (La.App. 5 Cir.
12/16/98) ] 726 So.2d [57] at 58, stated that the reviewing court
should consider three factors in reviewing the trial court‟s sentencing
discretion:

1. The nature of the crime,

2. The nature and background of the offender, and

3. The sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same
court and other courts.

State v. Whatley, 03-1275, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/3/04), 867 So.2d 955, 958-59.

3

Even when a sentence falls within the statutory sentencing range, it still may

be unconstitutionally excessive. In determining whether a sentence shocks the

sense of justice or makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals, this

court has suggested that several factors may be considered:

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. This court in State v. Edwards, 07-

1058, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/12/08), 979 So.2d 623, 628, writ denied, 08-2693 (La.

9/18/09), 17 So.3d 391 (quoting State v. Farhood, 02-490, p. 11 (La.App. 5 Cir.

3/25/03), 844 So.2d 217, 225), explained, “[h]owever, „[m]aximum sentences are

reserved for the most serious violations and the worst offenders.‟” The Lisotta test,

adopted by this court in Whatley, 867 So.2d 955, can be used to determine whether

the defendant‟s sentence is excessive.

Finally, this court has found that “when the offense to which the defendant

has pled guilty inadequately describes the entire course of the defendant‟s conduct,

the court may consider the benefit obtained by the defendant through the plea

bargain.” State v. Williams, 02-707, p. 8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/03), 839 So.2d 1095,

1101 (citing State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La.1982)). When a defendant has

received a reduction in the potential length of incarceration, the trial court‟s

discretion to impose the maximum sentence is enhanced. Edwards, 979 So.2d 623.

4

The first factor of the Lisotta/Whatley test is a review of the nature of the

crime. As mentioned above, the defendant pled guilty to the reduced charge of

attempted possession of methamphetamine.

The second factor is to review the nature and background of the defendant.

In the instant case, the trial court evaluated the biographical information of the

defendant, the PSI report, and the fact that the only agreement between the state

and the defendant was that the state would not seek any habitual offender action.

The trial court determined probationary treatment would not be appropriate given

the defendant‟s previous attempts on probation, his history of addiction, his status

as a third felony offender, and likelihood of reoccurrence. The trial court reasoned:

All right, very well. This is Number 84,111 and 112, State of
Louisiana versus Travis Nolen. Mr. Nolen appeared before this Court
on April the 3rd of 2013 and entered a guilty plea to attempted
possession of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance. In this
case it was Methamphetamine. Mr. Nolen is approximately 31 years
of age, he graduated from high school, and he has been employed in
the oilfield some.

The facts of this case are basically, Mr. Nolen was in a car with
another person. A traffic stop was made. At that time the drug dog
alerted and these drugs were found on the passenger side of the
vehicle, and, as I stated, Mr. Nolen pled guilty to the offense of
attempted possession. I ordered a pre-sentence investigation to be
conducted. It was done. I have received that report and have
considered its contents. The only agreement between the defendant
and the State was that the State would not seek any habitual offender
action against this defendant. This is, of course, a drug case and with
all drug cases there is harm to society in general. There are no
substantial grounds to justify this defendant‟s conduct. As I stated, he
is 31 years of age, he is not married, but has one child. Apparently he
is in excellent health. He does have some history of drug and alcohol
abuse and he has received some kind of rehab treatment at least two
times in the past. He does have a prior criminal record and he is
considered as a third offender classification. In 2006, he was
convicted of possession of a Schedule IV, Schedule II, and a Schedule
III narcotic drug. He was given a five year sentence and that was
suspended and he was placed on probation. In 2007, he was convicted
of attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was
given a five year prison sentence. That was suspended and he was
placed on probation. He was given an opportunity on this occasion to
5

assist and help with the drug problem in Vernon Parish and he
apparently did not take advantage of that opportunity. It does not
appear that Mr. Nolen is a person who would respond favorably to
probationary treatment because he has had that at least twice in the
past. There is undue risk that if he did receive a suspended sentence,
he may continue to commit other drug offenses, and he is in need of
correctional treatment at this time. Any sentence lesser than the one
that I‟m going to give would depreciate the seriousness of his offense.

Here, the defendant received a significant reduction in sentencing exposure

when the state reduced the charge. While the defendant argues that the trial court

did not take into consideration mitigating circumstances, there is evidence in the

record that it did.

The third factor is whether the sentence imposed is in line with that imposed

for similar crimes by the same court and other courts. This court, in State v.

Slaydon, 05-794, (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06), 921 So.2d 1199, held that a defendant‟s

sentence for a guilty plea to attempted possession of methamphetamine of thirty

months at hard labor, suspended, three years supervised probation, with ninety

days in the Beauregard Parish Jail was not excessive when the trial judge

considered defendant was a first felony offender, considered the PSI report, and

believed defendant may be rehabilitated.

In State v. Jackson, 10-50 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/2/10) (unpublished opinion),

this court held that the defendant‟s maximum sentence of two and one-half years

for attempted possession of cocaine, 18.43 grams, was not excessive where the trial

court considered the defendant‟s prior drug-related criminal history as an

aggravating factor and found no mitigating circumstances even though the

defendant was employed at the time of arrest.

In State v. Lefeat, 11-297 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11) (unpublished opinion),

this court affirmed the defendant‟s two-year sentence for attempted possession of

four and one-half pills of Xanax, a violation of La.R.S. 40:967(C)(2), holding that
6

it was not excessive where the trial court reviewed the PSI and acknowledged

defendant was a third felony offender, defendant had a history of drug and alcohol

abuse, and defendant had a prior criminal history. The trial court also

acknowledged that defendant‟s exposure was reduced, and the state agreed not to

file a habitual offender bill.

In reviewing similar cases, the state cites to State v. King, 446 So.2d 561

(La.App. 3 Cir. 1984), where this court upheld a sentence of a defendant who was

sentenced for attempted possession of phenmetrazine, also a Schedule II drug, to a

maximum two and one-half years and a $2,500 fine. This court determined that

the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it took into account the defendant‟s

extensive criminal history, including his arrest for distribution of a controlled

dangerous substance while the PSI was being made, and that defendant had no

prior felony convictions but eight misdemeanor convictions. Id. This court also

observed that the trial court deferred sentencing for over two months, reviewed the

PSI, used the La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1 factors, and took into account the

reduction of sentencing exposure to make its sentencing decision. Id.

In State v. Johnson, 12-306 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/24/12) (unpublished opinion),

while holding that defendant was procedurally barred from challenging his

sentence due to failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence, the first circuit

reviewed the factors the trial court considered before giving defendant the

maximum sentence of two and one-half years for attempted possession of

oxycodone, violations of La.R.S. 40:967(C)(2) and 40:979(A). The trial court

considered defendant‟s biographical information, employment history, possession

of twenty-one pills at the time of his arrest, and that the state would not file a

7

habitual offender bill. The first circuit determined that the trial court did not abuse

its discretion in sentencing.

In State v. Herndon, 513 So.2d 486 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1987), the defendant

likewise was sentenced to two and one-half years at hard labor for the attempted

possession of cocaine. The offense involved a substantial amount of cocaine while

the defendant was already on probation, and he had prior convictions of felony

drug offenses. The second circuit found his sentence was not excessive.

In the case before us, the defendant states in his brief:

[T]he Louisiana Legislature reduced the sentencing ranges for several
drug offenses by Act 403 of the 2001 Regular Session. In doing so,
the Legislature addressed the problem drugs play in our criminal
justice system and noted that rehabilitation was the preferred method
to address the issue.

Defense counsel referenced the dissent in State v. Olivier, 08-520 (La.App. 3 Cir.

12/30/08) (unpublished opinion), writ denied, 09-528 (La. 11/20/09), 25 So.3d 786,

where the judge discusses the legislative changes. The state correctly responds that

“a quick reading of Act 403 of the 2001 Regular Session reveals the Louisiana

Legislature did not change/amend the penalties for the defendant‟s crime.”

A trial court is given wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within

statutory limits. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 894.1 sets forth

factors which must be considered by the trial court before imposing sentence. In

light of the criteria expressed by La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1, a review for

individual excessiveness must consider the circumstances of the crime and the trial

court‟s stated reasons and factual basis for its sentencing decision. State v. Watkins,

532 So.2d 1182 (La.1988).

We find that the trial court‟s consideration of the defendant‟s individualized

circumstances was well-considered and, thus, did not abuse its vast discretion

8

when it sentenced the defendant to the maximum sentence of two and one-half

years and a fine of $2,000 plus court costs. Accordingly, this court affirms the

defendant‟s sentence.

CONCLUSION

The defendant‟s sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

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

9