State of Louisiana v. David Billy Parker, Jr.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

17-726

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

DAVID BILLY PARKER, JR.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 26188-14
HONORABLE GUY BRADBERRY, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

MARC T. AMY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, Van H. Kyzar, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

John F. DeRosier
District Attorney
Karen C. McLellan
Jacob L. Johnson
Cynthia Killingsworth
Assistant District Attorneys
Post Office Box 3206
Lake Charles, LA 70602-3206
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Mary Constance Hanes
Post Office Box 4015
New Orleans, LA 70178-4015
(504) 866-6652
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
David Billy Parker, Jr.

AMY, Judge.

The State charged the defendant with one count of manufacture and

possession of a bomb, and the jury ultimately found the defendant guilty of

attempted manufacture and possession of a bomb. The trial court sentenced the

defendant to seven years at hard labor, with credit for time served, and a fine of

$5,000.00. The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

After being dispatched to a residence to serve a warrant, Deputy Chris

Miller, of the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office, submitted, in pertinent part, the

following narrative in an affidavit:

During the execution of a felony warrant . . . [David Billy Parker, Jr.]
was located in the attic. A search and seizure form was signed for the
residence due to loose ammunition being seen while searching for the
subject in the residence and the combination of the fact that the
subject is a convicted felon. During the search of the residence, two
pipe bombs were located in the attic w[h]ere the subject had been
originally located.

Thereafter, by bill of information, the State charged the defendant, David Billy

Parker, Jr., with one count of manufacture and possession of a bomb, a violation of

La.R.S. 14:54.3. The defendant pled not guilty, and the matter proceeded to a jury

trial.

At trial, Deputy Miller testified that, on September 28, 2014, he arrived at

the defendant’s residence to serve a warrant on the defendant. He stated that the

defendant’s wife told him that the defendant was not there but that she granted

Deputy Miller permission to enter the residence to search for the defendant.

Deputy Miller explained that he located the defendant in the attic; verbally

commanded the defendant to come down from the attic; and, after the defendant

complied with the command and the defendant’s wife signed a search and seizure

form, searched the attic. Deputy Miller testified that, when “[he] entered the attic,

[he] noticed two PVC pipes that were capped on both ends that had wires coming

out of the ends[,]” which “looked like electrical wire.” He stated that, upon seeing

the devices, he removed himself, the defendant, the defendant’s wife, and two

children from the residence. Deputy Miller explained that he subsequently blocked

off the residence and called for assistance because “through [his] training, [he]

recognized it to be an IED [improvised explosive device] or a possible IED.”

Deputy Miller stated that the defendant told him that he had assembled the devices.

The jury also heard testimony from State Trooper Sean LaFleur, who

explained that he is a technician supervisor for the Louisiana State Police,

Emergency Services Unit, and that the unit he supervises is a “full-time HAZMAT

and explosive response unit,” which serves as “the bomb squad for the State

Police.” Trooper LaFleur testified that he and Investigator Hopkins were the bomb

technicians that responded to Deputy Miller’s call for assistance at the defendant’s

residence. According to his testimony, upon initially seeing the devices in the

attic, Trooper LaFleur observed: “Two PVC pipes. They were capped on both

ends. And on one end of each device, there was bare wire coming out. And on

one device, the bare wire coming out had a coding that was red in color, and on the

other device, it was - - I believe it was green in color.”

Trooper LaFleur explained that the technique used to remove the devices

from the residence is called a “hook and line kit[,]” which he described as a rope

and pulley system that can be operated remotely for safety. He stated that during

this process, one device came apart, specifically an endcap came off, and “then the

pyrotechnic or firework charge that was inside the pipe actually came out from that

2

one device.” Trooper LaFleur noted that, on the charge, he could see part of a

label and believed the charge to be a consumer firework based on the label

remnant, as well as the size. He classified they pyrotechnic charge as a “low

explosive.”1 Trooper LaFleur testified that, after they removed the devices from

the residence, they moved the devices with an extended pole to a sandbag area that

had been set up to “disrupt them or render them safe.” 2 At that point, Trooper

LaFleur stated that they deployed a PAN (Percussion Activated Non-Electronic)

disruptor, specifically “a disintegrating projectile . . . that is designed to . . . break

that pipe apart without it letting the pipe detonate on us, and that’s what happened

in this case.”

Regarding the devices, Trooper LaFleur testified that they fit the criteria he

looks for in identifying a “pipe bomb.” In this regard, the following colloquy

occurred:

Q. Okay. And what do you look for when you say the term “pipe
bomb”? What do you look for when you’re determining if
that’s what something is?

A. Container. We look at the type of container. And pipe bombs
can generally either be PVC or metal pipe bombs. We look to
see whether or not they are capped on both ends and potentially
if there are any other things coming out, wire, fuse, things of
that nature. Commonly, people will use hobby or cannon fuse.
Other times, they will use wire. Sometimes they are capped on
both ends, and everything is internal. So when we see a pipe
and see it capped on both ends, we treat it as an actual IED or
pipe bomb until we can prove otherwise.

1
Trooper LaFleur stated that low explosives are those that “generally travel at a
detonation velocity less than 3300 feet per second.” He also testified that “[l]ow explosives are
things such as propellant, such as black powder, which can be used in hunting and other various
things, different reenactments; smokeless powder, which goes in a handgun or a rifle;
ammunition; or flash powder, which goes into fireworks.”
2
Trooper LaFleur explained the process of disruption as follows: “[W]hen we disrupt it,
we take it apart and we open it up so we can gain access to what’s inside without it - - try to do it
without it detonating.” He noted that disruption is safer than detonation.

3

Q. And did these devices fit those criteria?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And how did they fit those criteria?

A. You had approximately a 10 to 12 inch long piece of PVC pipe
capped on both ends, and you had bare wire coming out from
one of the endcaps on each device.

Q. Going back to the one that came apart within the home, is it my
understanding that there was a pyrotechnic charge within that
pipe?

A. Yes.

Q. And electric wire was connected to that?

A. There was.

Trooper LaFleur further explained that detonating these devices “would be

pretty simple” by using a flame or by short-circuiting a battery and heating the

wire. He also noted that the devices could possibly detonate upon being dropped.

Trooper LaFleur stated that, if these devices were intact and detonated, they would

undergo fragmentation, which he described as “this thing coming apart in small

pieces . . . up to about 3300 feet per second[.]” He testified that fragmentation can

result in potentially serious injury and, in some cases, death. Trooper LaFleur

concluded that he searched for the defendant’s name in the explosive licensing

database and found neither an active nor an inactive license with the defendant’s

name.

The jury returned the responsive verdict of attempted manufacture and

possession of a bomb, a violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:54.3. Thereafter, the

defendant filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The trial court

sentenced the defendant to seven years at hard labor, with credit for time served

since September 2014, and a fine of $5,000.00. Subsequently, the defendant filed

4

a Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence and, at a hearing on the motion, argued

that his sentence should be reduced to five years. The trial court denied the

motion. The defendant now appeals, asserting the following assignments of error:

1. There is insufficient evidence to support David Billy Parker,
Jr.’s conviction for attempted manufacture and possession of a
bomb; the State failed to prove that the devices found in Mr.
Parker’s attic met the statutory definition of “bomb”; and

2. Mr. Parker’s seven-year sentence and maximum fine of $5000
are excessive under the circumstances.

Discussion

Errors Patent

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

errors patent on the face of the record. An error patent is one “that is discoverable

by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of

the evidence.” Id.

After sentencing the defendant, the trial court stated: “Mr. Parker has two

years to file what’s called ‘post-conviction relief[.]’” Louisiana Code of Criminal

Procedure Article 930.8 provides that the defendant has two years after the

conviction and sentence become final to file an application for post-conviction

relief. Accordingly, we find that the trial court’s advisement regarding the time

limitation for filing an application for post-conviction relief was insufficient. See

State v. Conway, 12-525 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/12), 101 So.3d 1132. We instruct

the trial court to inform the defendant of the provisions of La.Code Crim.P. art.

930.8 by sending written notice to the defendant within ten days of the rendition of

this opinion and to file written proof in the record that the defendant received the

notice. See id.

5

Sufficiency of the evidence

In his first assignment of error, the defendant asserts that there is insufficient

evidence to support his conviction for attempted manufacture and possession of a

bomb and that the State failed to prove that the devices found in his attic meet the

statutory definition of “bomb” found in La.R.S. 14:54.3(B). In discussing the issue

of sufficiency of the evidence, this court has explained:

When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal,
the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational
trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime
were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Duncan, 420
So.2d 1105 (La.1982). It is the role of the fact finder to weigh the
respective credibilities of the witnesses. The appellate court should
not second guess the credibility determinations of the trier of fact
beyond the application of the sufficiency evaluations allowed under
the Jackson standard of review. See State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King,
436 So.2d 559 (La.1983).

State v. Tassin, 472 So.2d 340, 342 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 477 So.2d 97

(La.1985). Thus, in order for an appellate court to affirm a conviction when the

issue of sufficiency of the evidence has been raised, “the record must reflect that

the state has satisfied its burden of proving the elements of the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt.” State v. Kennerson, 96-1518, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/97), 695

So.2d 1367, 1371. With this standard of review in mind, we turn to the elements

of the crime at issue herein.

The defendant was convicted of attempted manufacture and possession of a

bomb. Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:54.3 is titled “Manufacture and possession

of a bomb” and provides, in pertinent part:

A. It shall be unlawful for any person without proper license as
required by R.S. 40:1472.1 et seq., knowingly and intentionally to
manufacture, possess, or have under his control any bomb.

6

....

D. This Section shall not apply to fireworks possessed within
the meaning and contemplation of R.S. 51:650 et seq.

An “attempt” to commit a crime is defined in La.R.S. 14:27(A), which provides:

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or
omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the
accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the
offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the
circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.

However, “[m]ere preparation to commit a crime shall not be sufficient to

constitute an attempt[.]” La.R.S. 14:27(B)(1).

In briefing to this court, the defendant alleges that “the most significant fact

is that the devices had no detonator or ‘initiator,’ so they did not meet the statutory

definition of a bomb.” He contends that the evidence is insufficient because

“[a]lthough [Trooper LaFleur] explained what might initiate the device, i.e., a

flame or battery, there was no evidence of a battery or any explanation how one

might employ a flame to explode the devices.” However, we note that, while

La.R.S. 14:54.3(B) defines a bomb “as an explosive compound or mixture with a

detonator or initiator, or both,” it further states that: “The term ‘bomb’, as used

herein, shall also include any of the materials listed in Subsection C present in an

unassembled state but which could, when assembled, be ignited in the same

manner as described in Subsection C, when possessed with intent to manufacture

or assemble a bomb.” In pertinent part, La.R.S. 14:54.3(C) provides:

As used herein the term “explosive” means . . . any . . . device that
contains any oxidizing and combustible units, or other ingredients, in
such proportions, quantities, or packing that ignition by fire, by
friction, by concussion, by percussion, or by detonation of the
compound, mixture, or device or any part thereof may cause an
explosion.

With this in mind, we consider the testimony adduced at trial about the devices.

7

In this regard, and as discussed above, Trooper LaFleur testified that the

devices found in the defendant’s attic fit the criteria that he looks for when

determining if something constitutes a “pipe bomb” because the devices were

composed of PVC pipe capped on both ends and containing electrical wire

connected to a pyrotechnic charge, which he classified as a low explosive. Further,

the following information was elicited during Trooper LaFleur’s testimony:

Q. Given that these devices had that electrical wiring coming out
of them, how difficult would it be to have this item detonate?

A. It would be pretty simple. In fact, actually, low explosives
don’t require typical detonator or blasting cap or initiator to
initiate them. To initiate these things, it just needs flame. Or in
some cases, you can take this bare wire and hook a battery up to
it with just a little bit, heat this wire up, and you can function
this device.

So if I short-circuited a battery onto the end of this device
and heat that wire up enough, that would be enough to initiate
this device.

....

[A.] In this case, we’re dealing with pipe bombs.

....

But when you take a low explosive and you containerize
it such as putting it inside a pipe, whether it is PVC or metal,
you end up with what’s called a mechanical explosion. And
what happens is there is nowhere for the gases to go that are
burning, so what happens is it ends up over pressuring this
device. And that’s where you get that fragmentation and this
thing coming apart violently. So that’s what you get.

Pipe bombs are by definition a mechanical explosion
because what you are doing is you’re just confining those gases
until they get [to] a point to where that container just can’t hold
it.

....

8

Q. And you said it would not detonate without some sort of
initiator? Like a firework is not just going to detonate if you
drop it on the ground, correct?

A. It potentially can because fireworks just like different types of
explosives are sensitive to heat shock and friction.

Importantly, Trooper LaFleur testified that adding fire, a battery, or friction could

initiate the subject materials and result in an explosion.

In his assertion that the State failed to prove that the devices in question

constituted bombs, the defendant further notes that La.R.S. 14:54.3 does not apply

to the possession of fireworks. He argues that “[t]he evidence shows that the

devices in question were created simply as a modification of ordinary fireworks—

not to enhance their capability to do damage.” In support of his argument, the

defendant also points out that “Trooper LaFleur confirmed that no nuts, bolts,

nails, or anything of that nature was found inside the PVC pipe.”

Regarding how the fireworks had been modified, Trooper LaFleur stated that

the firework fuse was removed and replaced with a wire and that “[i]t would be

pretty simple” to initiate the device with a flame or battery due to the presence of

the wire. Trooper LaFleur also explained that the fireworks had been modified

because “legal fireworks don’t come in a container such as PVC with endcaps on it

either.” On this point, he explained: “The danger is the fact that the firework was

in an enclosed container. And had that thing come apart as other pipe bombs do,

then the hazard is the container itself, not the firework.” While acknowledging that

the devices did not contain “shrapnel,” Trooper LaFleur explained:

[A.] Now, if these devices are intact and they detonate, these things
come apart. End caps will come off, and these devices will
fragment. You’ll hear the term shrapnel or fragmentation from
time to time, two completely different things but things that
sometimes are mischaracterized.

9

Fragmentation is this thing coming apart in small pieces.
And as fast as that material is, up to about 3300 feet per second,
this pipe or fragments of this pipe can travel at that same
velocity.

Shrapnel is a different term, something we didn’t see
here, but you will hear the term, and those are things added to
it. Some devices we deal with have nuts and bolts, ball
bearings, BBs, things of that nature, which are intended to
cause harm and things like that.

But this thing, if it detonates even without those things,
it’s going to fragment. You can kind of see it a little bit here
(indicating). It will come off in very small pieces . . .

....

A. There would be expectation there would be some sort of injury,
potentially serious injury. And in some cases, some of these
devices could involve or include death as well.

Notably, Trooper LaFleur explained that the modifications to the fireworks,

namely the wires and the capped containers, meant that the devices were simple to

initiate and that initiation would result in fragmentation, which can cause serious

injury or death. Considering the foregoing testimony, and viewing the evidence in

the light most favorable to the prosecution under the Jackson standard of review,

we maintain the defendant’s conviction.

Significantly, and notwithstanding the defendant’s argument regarding

whether the devices included a detonator or initiator, the defendant was convicted

of attempted manufacture and possession of a bomb. Louisiana Revised Statutes

14:27 states that an “attempt” occurs when “[a]ny person who, having a specific

intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending

directly toward the accomplishing of his object[.]” Specific criminal intent is

defined as “that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the

offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or

10

failure to act.” La.R.S. 14:10(1). In discussing criminal attempt, the supreme

court has stated:

Specific intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding
the offense and the conduct of the defendant. [State v.] Ordodi, [06-
0207 (La. 11/29/06), 946 So.2d 654,] 661; State v. Weary, 03-3067
(La.4/24/06), 931 So.2d 297, 310, cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1062, 127
S.Ct. 682, 166 L.Ed.2d 531 (2006). The determination of whether
specific intent exists is a fact question for the jury. Ordodi, supra at
661; State v. Legrand, 02-1462 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 89, 96, cert.
denied, 544 U.S. 947, 125 S.Ct. 1692, 161 L.Ed.2d 523 (2005).

....

The State must also prove defendant committed or omitted “
‘an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the
accomplishing of his object,’ sometimes referred to as an ‘overt act.’ ”
Ordodi, supra at 661. In Ordodi, we explained that the attempt statute
makes a distinction between actions which are “mere preparation” and
are not sufficient to constitute attempt, and acts which are committed
for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of
the criminal object. Id. at 662. However, we noted that the
distinction is not clearly defined and that actions which are mere
preparation and those which constitute an overt act “exist on a
continuum.” Id. Where a defendant’s actions fall on the continuum is
a fact question for the trier of fact and is determined by evaluating the
“the totality of the facts and circumstances presented by each case.”
Id. (Citing State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La.10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442, 444;
State v. Williams, 490 So.2d 255, 261 (La.1986), cert. denied, 483
U.S. 1033, 107 S.Ct. 3277, 97 L.Ed.2d 780 (1987)). The overt act
need not be the ultimate step toward or the last possible act in the
consummation of the crime attempted, and it is the intent to commit
the crime, not the possibility of success, that determines whether the
act or omission constitutes the crime of attempt. Smith, supra at 445.

State v. Jones, 10-0762, pp. 6-7 (La. 9/7/11), 74 So.3d 197, 201-02.

As discussed above, Deputy Miller testified that he discovered the devices in

the attic where the defendant had been located and that the defendant told him that

he had assembled the devices. Additionally, Trooper LaFleur explained that

consumer fireworks had been modified in creating these devices:

[Q]. Have you ever come across any type of residential firework that
comes in a plastic - - or in a PVC pipe with caps on both ends?

11

A. No.

....

Q. Have you ever come across a firework that comes with electric
wiring from the store?

A. No.

....

Q. So this would have been something that - - after market done,
correct, by an individual?

A. Yes. You can’t buy it like that.

Q. You can’t buy it that way? Was this altered in any way from
when it was a firework bought at the store?

A. Yes.

Q. How is that?

A. The fuse was removed.

Q. What was in its place?

A. In this picture, nothing. But previously and consistent with the
other IED, there was bare wire or there was wire running into it.

Trooper LaFleur explained that these modifications, namely the replacement of the

firework fuse with wire and the placing of the firework into capped PVC pipe,

meant that “[i]t would be pretty simple” to detonate the devices and that detonation

would result in fragmentation. Trooper LaFleur stated that he “did a name search

under our explosive licensing database” for the defendant’s name and that the

search results showed that there was “[n]o active or inactive license with [the

defendant’s] name.” La.R.S. 14:54.3(A); La.R.S. 40:1472.1 et seq. See also

Tassin, 472 So.2d 340.

Considering the foregoing, and viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that any rational trier of fact could have

12

found that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had

specific intent and committed an overt act in furtherance of the crime of

manufacture and possession of a bomb. Thus, we affirm the defendant’s

conviction for attempted manufacture and possession of a bomb.

Excessive sentence and excessive fine

In his second assignment of error, the defendant contends that his “seven-

year sentence and maximum fine of $5000 are excessive under the circumstances.”

In particular, the defendant asserts that his sentence is excessive in light of Tassin,

472 So.2d 340 (wherein the defendant, who pled guilty to being a habitual

offender, third offense, was convicted of manufacture and possession of a bomb

and sentenced to ten years at hard labor).3

The penalty for “Manufacture and possession of a bomb” is found in La.R.S.

14:54.3(E), which provides: “Whoever violates this Section shall be fined not

more than ten thousand dollars or be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than

twenty years, or both.” However, the defendant was convicted of attempted

manufacture and possession of a bomb, and La.R.S. 14:27(D)(3) provides that the

penalty for an attempt “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.”

Therefore, the defendant was subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of ten

years and a maximum fine of five thousand dollars. As discussed above, the

defendant received a sentence of seven years at hard labor and the maximum fine.

Regarding appellate review of an excessive sentence claim, a panel of this

court stated:

3
In Tassin, 472 So.2d at 342, the opinion reports only that “the defendant . . . was
sentenced to serve ten years at hard labor in the Department of Corrections.” It does not indicate
whether the defendant received a fine.

13

Both the United States and Louisiana constitutions guarantee
that no person shall be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. U.S.
Const. amend. VIII; La. Const. art. I, § 20. A sentence is excessive
when a reviewing court finds that the penalty is “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.” 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. The trial court has broad sentencing
discretion, and a sentence within statutory limits will not be set aside
absent a manifest abuse of that discretion. State v. Etienne, 99-192
(La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99), 746 So.2d 124, writ denied, 00-165
(La.6/30/00), 765 So.2d 1067. However, sentences within the
statutory sentencing range can be reviewed for constitutional
excessiveness. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979).

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.

State v. Soileau, 13-772, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So.3d 1008, 1011,

writ denied, 14-452 (La. 9/26/14), 149 So.3d 261.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court and counsel for the State discussed

that the defendant was eligible to be charged as a habitual offender, which could

have increased his penalty. Counsel for the State also reminded the trial court that

the defendant had pending charges, specifically two counts of carnal knowledge of

14

a juvenile, as well as a criminal history, which included two felony convictions. In

light of the foregoing, we find no manifest abuse of the trial court’s broad

sentencing discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s sentence.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the conviction of the defendant, David Billy

Parker, Jr., for attempted manufacture and possession of a bomb is affirmed.

Additionally, the defendant’s sentence of imprisonment of seven years and the

$5,000.00 fine are affirmed. The trial court is instructed to inform the defendant of

the provisions of La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8 by sending written notice to the

defendant within ten days of the rendition of this opinion and to file written proof

in the record that the defendant received the notice.

AFFIRMED.

15