State of Louisiana v. Christopher H. Joseph

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-957

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

CHRISTOPHER H. JOSEPH

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 22090-08
HONORABLE CLAYTON DAVIS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN E. CONERY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Jimmie C. Peters, and
John E. Conery, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

John Foster DeRosier
District Attorney
Karen C. McLellan
Assistant District Attorney
14th Judicial District Court
901 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 800
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Carey J. Ellis, III
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 719
Rayville, Louisiana 71269
(318) 728-2043
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Christopher H. Joseph

Christopher H. Joseph
Louisiana State Prison
MPWY/Oak - 3
Angola, Louisiana 70712
Pro Se

CONERY, Judge.

On October 30, 2008, Defendant, Christopher H. Joseph, was charged by bill

of indictment with one count of first degree murder, in violation of La.R.S. 14:30.

On February 17, 2011, a unanimous jury found Defendant guilty as charged. On

March 11, 2011, Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with the

Department of Corrections without benefits.

Defendant appealed his conviction, and this court vacated the conviction and

rendered a conviction for second degree murder, in violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1,

and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. See State v. Joseph, 11-

1583 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/13/12), 94 So.3d 922, writ denied, 12-1652 (La. 3/1/13),

108 So.3d 783.

On March 26, 2014, Defendant was again sentenced to life imprisonment.

Defendant appealed, and this court vacated and remanded for resentencing on the

ground that Defendant was not represented by counsel during sentencing. See

State v. Joseph, 14-1188 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/6/15), 164 So.3d 389. On July 15,

2015, with counsel present, Defendant was once again sentenced to life

imprisonment without benefits.

Defendant now timely appeals his sentence, arguing that the sentence is

excessive because the trial court did not articulate any sentencing factors

considered under La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1. For the following reasons, we find

Defendant’s assignment of error lacks merit. Defendant’s sentence is affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The facts of this case have been visited repeatedly, and this court stated that

“[o]n August 28, 2008, Defendant shot and killed Darius Wilson.” Joseph, 94

So.3d at 924.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Defendant’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court imposed an

excessive sentence when it sentenced him to life imprisonment without considering

any of the mitigating factors under La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1. This argument

lacks merit. Our court has stated:

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:30.1 mandates a sentence of life
imprisonment and provides, in pertinent part, “[w]hoever commits the
crime of second degree murder shall be punished by life imprisonment
at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of
sentence.” A discussion of the aggravating or mitigating factors, as
required by La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1, is satisfied when the court
informs a defendant that he or she is receiving the mandatory sentence
under the statute. State v. Paddio, 02-722 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/02),
832 So.2d 1120, writ denied, 03-402 (La.2/13/04), 867 So.2d 682.

State v. Perkins, 13-245, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/13), 124 So.3d 605, 608.

Excessive sentence claims involving mandatory sentences are analyzed

pursuant to jurisprudence this court has previously discussed:

In a case such as the instant case, where one of the sentences
was a mandatory sentence and the other a mandatory minimum
sentence, the Defendant has the burden to rebut the presumption that
the sentences are unconstitutional by clear and convincing evidence,
showing that:

[she] is exceptional, which in this context means that
because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a
victim of the legislature’s failure to assign sentences that
are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the
offender, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstance
of the case.

2

State v. Young, 94-1636, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/26/95), 663 So.2d
525, 531, writ denied, 95-3010 (La.3/22/96), 669 So.2d 1223.

Defendant has failed to meet her burden of showing how she is
exceptional under the circumstances. Except for reciting the law
regarding the general requirements for an adequate sentencing
procedure, Defendant does not give any reason why her consecutive
sentences are excessive.

State v. Pierre, 02-277, p. 15 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/11/03), 854 So.2d 945, 954, writ

denied, 03-2042 (La. 1/16/04), 864 So.2d 626 (citations omitted).

Much like the defendant in Pierre, Defendant has failed to show or allege

any such exceptional circumstances. Additionally, this court has previously stated:

[I]t would have been an exercise in futility for the trial court to set
forth those factors indicating that a sentence of imprisonment should
have been imposed on defendant, and those factors indicating that a
suspended sentence or probation would be proper, when it had no
discretion in sentencing defendant.

State v. Williams, 445 So.2d 1264, 1269 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 449 So.2d

1346 (La.1984).

Under Perkins, the trial court fulfilled its duty to discuss aggravating and

mitigating factors when it informed Defendant that he was receiving the mandatory

sentence under the statute. As such, Defendant’s argument lacks merit and his

sentence is affirmed.

DISPOSITION

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is not designated for publication. Uniform Rules—Courts of
Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.

3