State of Louisiana v. Lee John Ponthieux, Jr.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

14-741
14-742
14-743

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

LEE JOHN PONTHIEUX, JR.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CATAHOULA, NO. 12-2401, 12-2402, 12-2403
HONORABLE GLEN W. STRONG, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Billy Howard Ezell,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Edward Kelly Bauman
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 1641
Lake Charles, LA 70602-1641
(337) 491-0570
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT- APPELLANT:
Lee John Ponthieux, Jr.

Bradley R. Burget
District Attorney, Seventh Judicial District
Myisha R. Davis
Assistant District Attorney
4001 Carter St., Suite 9
Vidalia, LA 71373
(318) 336-5526
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

PICKETT, Judge.

FACTS

On August 20, 2012, the defendant committed the first degree murders of

Annie Bell Adams, John D. Ellard, Jr., and Edris Adams Ellard.

On October 15, 2012, the Catahoula Parish grand jury indicted the

defendant, Lee John Ponthieux, Jr., for the first degree murders of Annie Bell

Adams, John D. Ellard, Jr.. and Ednis Adams Ellard, violations of La.R.S. 14:30.

The jury found the defendant guilty on December 19, 2013. The trial court

sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of

parole, probation, or suspension of benefits on February 4, 2014. The trial court

ordered the sentences to run consecutively.

The defendant appeals the consecutive nature of the three life sentences and

also alleges the trial court erred by not observing a twenty-four-hour waiting

period between the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal/new trial and

sentencing.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

1. The three consecutive life sentences imposed by the trial court
were unconstitutionally excessive.

2. The trial court erred when it sentenced appellant less than 24-hours
from when it overruled appellant’s post judgment of acquittal and
motion for new trial in violation of La.Crim. Code Art. 873 [sic].

ERRORS PATENT

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

errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find there is

a possible error patent which the defendant raised as assignment of error number

two.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

The defendant argues the consecutive nature of the three life sentences

imposed by the trial court was unconstitutionally excessive. When a defendant is

convicted of multiple offenses “based on the same act or transaction, or

constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms of imprisonment shall be

served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served

consecutively.” La.Code Crim.P. art. 883.

In State v. Wood, 08-1511 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/09), 11 So.3d 701, the

defendant was convicted of three counts of second degree murder and sentenced to

three consecutive life sentences. On appeal, he claimed the mandatory sentences

and the consecutive nature of those sentences represented needless pain and

suffering, and the trial court cited no reason or basis for imposing the sentences

consecutively.

The defendant filed no motion to reconsider his sentence. This court noted

the failure to file such a motion could prevent the defendant from raising an

excessive sentence claim but nevertheless reviewed the claim for constitutional

excessiveness. This court could not say the sentences were grossly

disproportionate to the offenses “[g]iven the senselessness of the three murders”

and also found the trial court did not improperly impose consecutive sentences. Id.

at 713.

Further, this court noted each life sentence was without benefit of probation,

parole, or suspension of sentence. Thus, “even if the trial court did err in imposing

consecutive sentences . . . the error would be harmless.” Id. at 715. This court also

did not consider the defendant’s argument that the trial court failed to explain why

it ordered consecutive sentences because any such error would be harmless.

2

This court should consider “the offender’s past criminality, violence in the

charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community”

when reviewing the imposition of consecutive sentences. State v. Cornejo-Garcia,

11-619, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/24/12), 90 So.3d 458, 465. In Cornejo-Garcia, the

defendant was convicted of three counts of second degree murder and sentenced to

three consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without benefits. The fifth circuit

noted the mandatory minimum sentences were presumed to be constitutional.

Further, the appellate court found the trial court imposed the sentences

consecutively based on the fact of a premeditated armed robbery that resulted in

four deaths. “[G]iven the gravity of defendant’s offense, the articulated reasons by

the trial judge, and the supporting jurisprudence,” the fifth circuit found no abuse

in the trial court’s discretion to impose the sentences consecutively. Id. at 466.

When reviewing whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing

consecutive sentences, the second circuit considers “the defendant’s criminal

history, the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, the viciousness of the crimes,

the harm done to the victims, whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of

danger to the public, and the potential for defendant’s rehabilitation[.]” State v.

Tillman, 47,386, pp. 19-20 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/8/12), 104 So.3d 480, 493, writ

denied, 12-2035 (La. 1/25/13), 105 So.3d 714 (citations omitted).

Here, the defendant filed no motion to reconsider his mandatory life

sentences. On appeal, he contends his sentences are constitutionally excessive

because they were imposed consecutively. The defendant’s counsel objected to the

consecutive nature of the sentences at the time they were imposed.

The defendant left high school during his junior year and was arrested at age

eighteen for hitting a juvenile. He was sentenced to four years at hard labor after a

3

conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. Although he made trustee status

during his incarceration, he then stole a four-wheeler during an escape from the jail

and was sentenced to ten years at hard labor, to run consecutively to the original

four years. The defendant served nine years of his sentence and was released on

parole. He moved to Morgan City for about ten years and then to Catahoula Parish

in 2012. He worked at the pecan orchard in Catahoula Parish for about two

months prior to these murders.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge noted the heinous nature of the

defendant’s crimes:

I’ve tried probably three dozen murder trials or more over the past 30
plus years, and these were the most horrific crimes that I’ve ever seen.
I promised myself when I left the courtroom after this trial that I
would never again try another murder trial, because these were so
horrific, and the injuries and the attacks on these victims were so
horrible.

I’ve never witnessed anything like that.

These were extremely violent and vicious crimes which resulted in the deaths of

three people. Accordingly, we find the nature of the offenses justifies the

imposition of consecutive sentences.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO

The defendant contends the trial court erred when it sentenced him less than

twenty-four hours after it denied his post-judgment motion for acquittal and

alternative motion for new trial in violation of La.Code Crim.P. art. 873. The trial

court denied the motions at a hearing on February 4, 2014. When the trial judge

raised a question about whether the defendant was “entitled to some delay after the

Court rules on this motion,” defense counsel responded the motion had to be

decided prior to sentencing. Defense counsel then explained, “I’ll tell you, I’ve

4

done it before, and the Judge has ruled on it, and then they go forward with the

sentencing.” The trial court proceeded with sentencing with no objection from the

defendant or the state.

According to La.Code Crim.P. art. 873, “[i]f a motion for a new trial, or in

arrest of judgment, is filed, sentence shall not be imposed until at least twenty-four

hours after the motion is overruled.” Sentencing may take place immediately “[i]f

the defendant expressly waives a delay[.]” Id.

In State v. J.F., 05-1410 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 927 So.2d 614, writ denied,

06-1424 (La. 12/8/06), 943 So.2d 1060, the defendant received the mandatory

sentence of life imprisonment. The trial court sentenced him the same day it

denied his motion for new trial. This court found the trial court’s failure to allow a

twenty-four-hour delay between the denial of the motion and sentencing was an

error patent. However, because the defendant received the mandatory life

sentence, the error was harmless.

Here, the defendant received a mandatory life sentence and failed to object

to immediate sentencing after the denial of the motions. In fact, defense counsel

suggested that was how it should be done. Further, the defendant has neither made

an argument nor shown he was prejudiced by the lack of delay. Any error

resulting from the lack of delay is harmless.

CONCLUSION

The defendant’s sentences are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

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

5