State v. Landry
871 So. 2d 1235, 2004 WL 728161 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for second-degree battery requires proof that the defendant had the specific intent to inflict serious bodily injury and that such injury resulted; a sentence is not constitutionally excessive if the trial court adequately articulates a factual basis for the sentence that is not disproportionate to the crime, even if it does not rigidly adhere to statutory sentencing guidelines.
Facts:
- On the night of August 2, 2002, Raymond Rojas and his family were celebrating a birthday at the Deuce's Wild Lounge in Venice, Louisiana.
- Koty Landry approached Rojas's table, and Rojas told him to leave, stating it was a private party.
- Landry later had another verbal exchange with Rojas at the bar and attempted to shake Rojas's hand, which Rojas refused.
- As Rojas left the bar to go to his truck, Landry followed him.
- Landry punched Rojas in the face, causing Rojas to fall onto the concrete and be knocked unconscious.
- Raymond Rojas suffered a broken jaw on one side and a fractured jaw on the other, scrapes, bruises, had teeth removed, his jaw wired shut, and was on a liquid diet for eight weeks.
- Landry left the scene before police arrived and admitted to having consumed about twelve beers that night.
- Landry testified he felt threatened and punched Rojas from the front, while Rojas and his wife stated he was attacked from behind and kicked while unconscious.
Procedural Posture:
- A bill of information was filed on August 22, 2002, charging Koty Landry with second-degree battery.
- Koty Landry entered a plea of not guilty on September 9, 2002.
- On March 11, 2003, a jury of six found Koty Landry guilty as charged.
- A pre-sentence investigation was ordered.
- On June 23, 2003, Koty Landry was sentenced to four years at hard labor, suspended, with four years active and one year inactive probation, and various conditions including a $1,500.00 fine, alcohol abuse program, $6,998.26 restitution, $3,000.00 to the Indigent Defender Board, an anger management program, 30 days in custody, and an 18-month protective order.
- On the same day, the defense moved for an appeal, which was granted, bringing the case before the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is there sufficient evidence to support Koty Landry's conviction for second-degree battery, and is the sentence imposed for that crime constitutionally excessive?
Opinions:
Majority - Moon Landrieu
Yes, there is sufficient evidence to support Koty Landry's conviction for second-degree battery, and no, the sentence imposed for the crime is not constitutionally excessive. The court affirmed the conviction, applying the sufficiency of evidence standard from Jackson v. Virginia, which requires reviewing whether, in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each essential element. For second-degree battery under La. R.S. 14:34.1, the state must prove a battery without consent and specific intent to inflict serious bodily injury. Specific intent (La. R.S. 14:10(1)) means actively desiring criminal consequences, and serious bodily injury (La. R.S. 14:34.1) includes unconsciousness or protracted impairment. The victim was knocked unconscious, suffered a broken/fractured jaw, and was on a liquid diet for eight weeks, which clearly meets the definition of serious bodily injury and supports a finding of specific intent. Regarding the sentence, the court found it was not constitutionally excessive, even though it was within statutory limits. A sentence is excessive if it makes no measurable contribution to punishment goals or is grossly disproportionate to the crime. While trial judges should generally comply with La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, rigid adherence is not required if the record shows an adequate factual basis. The trial court noted Landry's lack of felony convictions but considered his misdemeanor history (including DWI, marijuana), his tendency to get "out of control," his lack of remorse, and the likelihood of recurrence. The court also emphasized the need for victim restitution due to significant medical expenses and lost wages. Given these articulated considerations, the trial court did not abuse its broad sentencing discretion.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the application of key evidentiary standards for criminal convictions and the appellate review process for sentencing. It reinforces the principle that a single, forceful blow resulting in severe injuries and unconsciousness can be sufficient to prove 'specific intent' to inflict 'serious bodily injury' in second-degree battery cases, even if the defendant claims self-defense or less intent. Furthermore, the decision highlights the broad discretion afforded to trial courts in sentencing, emphasizing that an appellate court will generally uphold a sentence if the trial judge provides a reasoned factual basis, considering factors like the defendant's history, remorse, and victim impact, even without strict adherence to statutory guidelines, provided the sentence is not constitutionally excessive.
