STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2022 ISA 0795

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ULY RAMON HENDERSON

Judgment Rendered: 

Appealed from the

32" d Judicial District Court

In and for the Parish of Terrebonne

State of Louisiana

Docket No. 789790

FEB 2 4 2023

The Honorable Timothy C. Ellender, Jr., Judge Presiding

Joseph L. Waitz, Jr. 

District Attorney

Gary Williams, Jr. 

Ellen Daigle Doskey

Assistant District Attorney

Houma, LA

Bruce G. Whittaker

New Orleans, LA

Appellee, 

State of Louisiana

Defend ant/Appellant, 

Uly Ramon Henderson

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., WOLFE, AND MILLER, JJ. 
MILLER, J. 

The defendant, Uly Ramon Henderson, was charged by bill of information

with third degree rape, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 43, and pied not guilty. 

Following a jury trial, he was found guilty as charged by unanimous verdict. He

moved for a new trial and a post -verdict judgment of acquittal. 

The State then filed a bill of information against the defendant, seeking to

adjudicate him as a second felony offender. i The defendant denied the allegations

of the habitual offender bill. At the habitual offender hearing, the court denied the

post -conviction motions, and the defendant waived sentencing delays. Thereafter, 

the court adjudged the defendant a second -felony habitual offender and sentenced

him to twenty-five years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or

suspension of sentence. 

The defendant moved for reconsideration of sentence orally and in writing. 

However, prior to the hearing on the defendant' s motion for reconsideration of

sentence, the defendant filed a motion to appeal his conviction and sentence. 

When the motion to reconsider appeared on the docket at a subsequent hearing

date, the minutes reflect that upon motion of the defendant, the trial court ordered

that the motion was moot. 

On appeal, the defendant challenges the evidence as insufficient and the

sentence as excessive. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction, 

habitual offender adjudication, and sentence. 

FACTS

The victim, C.R.,' was born on December 20, 2005. She testified that on

December 20, 2019,3 when she was thirteen years old, she lived in Houma with her

The predicate offense was set forth as the defendant' s April 20, 2017 guilty plea, under

Seventeenth Judicial District Court docket number 560,656 to possession with intent to distribute

cocaine. 

C.R. is referenced herein only by her initials. See La. R.S. 46: 1844(W). 

2
mother and step -father. The defendant was her first cousin - the son of her

mother' s sister. 

At trial, the State played a January 7, 2019 interview with C.R. recorded at

the Child Advocacy Center ( CAC}. In the interview, recorded on a Monday, C.R. 

indicated she had been lying in her bed with her twenty-three year old first cousin, 

the defendant, at approximately 1: 00 a.m. on Sunday, January b. C.R. stated that

her feet were facing the defendant' s head, and his head was facing her feet. 

According to CR., the defendant started " humping" her leg with his " private

part." He also touched her between her legs and played with her private part. He

then pulled his shorts down and pulled C.R.' s " tights, drawers, shorts" down. 

Thereafter, C. R. stated the defendant " started forcing himself on me and in me." 

She stated the defendant put his " private part in [ her] butt." She also stated, " it

hurted," and when she started " pushing away," the defendant told her to " keep

still." She further stated, " at the end of it all, he had put my hand on his private

part." Thereafter, the defendant gave C.R. four dollars. C.R. " got [ her] stuff and

went out the house." 

C. R. confirmed at trial that the defendant " put his thing in [ her], in [ her] 

butt." She testified that the defendant got out of the bed, went around the bed, 

took my legs and ... put them over and he pulled ... my pants about right there ... 

a] nd my body, half of my body was leaning off the bed. And that' s when he

forced himself in me." She stated she ran out of the room after the defendant " put

his private part in my hand." 

On January 7, 2019, Quiana Daniels Jones was employed as a Terrebonne

Parish School Board social worker at Oaklawn Junior High School. On that day, 

someone reported to her in a phone call that C.R. had been sexually assaulted. 

3The State may have intended to question C.R. about where she lived on December 20, 

2018 - when she turned thirteen years old and shortly prior to the offense. 

3
Jones advised the person to call the police. Thereafter, she spoke to C.R. at

school. According to Jones, C.R. had normally smiled when she saw her, but on

this occasion she " looked like down, sad." C. R. told Jones, " Uly, her cousin[,] had

put his, his private in her butt[,]" at her house. 

Terrebonne Parish Sheriff' s Office Detective Monica Odom investigated

C.R.' s claims against the defendant. That same day, Detective Odom arrived at the

school at approximately 11: 00 a.m. C.R. told Detective Odom that she had been

raped by her cousin Uly. Detective Odom scheduled an appointment for C.R. with

the CAC at 12: 30 p.m. that day. 

Sandy Borne, a notary public in Thibodaux, notarized a July 25, 2019

affidavit in which C. R. stated she had an encounter with the defendant which

resulted in charges being placed against him for third degree rape. The affidavit

stated, " I do not wish to put myself through a trial and no longer wish to pursue

these charges which were filed against [ the defendant], and respectfully ask that

these charges be dropped." However, Borne testified at trial that she did not recall

either, C.R. or the adults that accompanied her, stating that the charges against the

defendant were " made up" or that C.R. was lying. According to Borne, the female

accompanying C.R. stated she wanted the charges dropped because she did not

want the defendant to go to jail because he had a four-year-old child. 

G.W. is the cousin of C.R. G.W. testified that he lived down the street from

C.R. G.W. further testified that C. R. called him at 1: 00 a.m. on the night of the

incident and asked him to open his door. He stated that C.R. came to his door in

tears, holding her shoes in her hands. According to G.W., C. R. came inside and

just kept crying." When he asked her what was wrong, she reported the defendant

had rubbed her legs and "[ h] is thing touched her booty." Thereafter, C.R. called

G.W. to the bathroom to show him blood on a paper towel. G.W. conceded he did

4
not know if C. R. had wiped herself from the front or from the back with the paper

towel. He also testified that he did not know if "her cycle" had started. 

G.W.' s mother is the second cousin of C.R. On January 6, 2019, G.W. 

called her and gave her information concerning C.R., which caused her to return

home immediately. C.R. reported to her that the defendant had raped her. 

Tammy Rash was employed by the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab

LSPCL) as a DNA analyst. She testified that a sexual assault kit from C.R. was

submitted for analysis on January 14, 2019. She further testified that two cuttings

from a bed sheet, and a reference sample from the defendant were submitted to

LSPCL for analysis on January 14, 2019. Following a screening on January 14, 

2019, the defendant' s DNA was not found on the reference swabs from C.R. Rash

conceded she was not privy to information concerning whether or not in excess of

forty-eight hours had passed between the incident and when the swabs were taken

from C.R., whether C. R. had taken multiple baths before being swabbed or if C.R. 

had changed clothes before being swabbed. Rash further conceded that the

absence of DNA on the sample did not indicate one way or the other whether the

defendant actually did what he was accused of doing. 

John Maya was also employed at LSPCL as a serologist. Mr. Maya testified

that as a serologist, he examines evidence for the presence of biological

substances. He testified no seminal fluids were detected on the bed sheet samples

submitted for review. He conceded that he knew nothing about the facts of the

case, including whether or not the bed sheet was present in a situation where

seminal fluid could have been left on it. 

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In his first assignment of error, the defendant argues the evidence presented

was insufficient to support the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. He argues the

State failed to present evidence of " penile penetration." He notes, "[ wlhile

6
C.R.' s] statement and testimony indicated that [ the defendant] penetrated her with

his ` private' or his ` thing,' she at no time observed [ the defendant' s] penis, nor

described it in any way, nor testified that it was erect." 

A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand, as it violates due

process. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, La. Const. art. I, § 2. In reviewing claims

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must determine

whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the entirety of the evidence, 

viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443

U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 ( 1979); State v. Oliphant, 

2013- 2973 ( La. 2121114), 133 So. 3d 1255, 1258- 59 ( per curiam); see also La. 

C.Cr.P. art. 821( B); State v. Mussall, 523 So. 2d 1305, 1308- 09 ( La. 1988). State

v. Livous, 2018- 0016 ( La. App. I' Cir. 9/ 24/ 18), 259 So. 3d 1036, 1039- 40, writ

denied, 2018- 1788 ( La. 4/ 15119), 267 So. 3d 1130. When circumstantial evidence

forms the basis of the conviction, the evidence, " assuming every fact to be proved

that the evidence tends to prove ... must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of

innocence." La. R.S. 15: 438; Oliphant, 133 So. 3d at 1258; Livous, 259 So. 3d at

1040, 

The due process standard does not require the reviewing court to determine

whether it believes the witnesses or whether it believes the evidence establishes

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mire, 2014-2295 ( La. 1/ 27116), 269 So. 

3d 6989 703 ( per curiam). Rather, appellate review is limited to determining

whether the facts established by the direct evidence and inferred from the

circumstances established by that evidence are sufficient for any rational trier of

fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every

essential element of the crime. State v. Gardner, 2016- 0192 ( La. App. I Sc Cir. 

9119116), 204 So. 3d 265, 267. The weight given evidence is not subject to

CN
appellate review; therefore, an appellate court will not reweigh evidence to

overturn a factfinder' s determination of guilt. Livous, 259 So. 3d at 1040. 

At the time of the offense, La. R.S. 14: 41, in pertinent part, provided, as

follows:4

A. Rape is the act of anal ... sexual intercourse with a ... 

female person committed without the person' s lawful consent. 

B. Emission is not necessary, and any sexual penetration, 

when the rape involves ... anal intercourse, however slight, is

sufficient to complete the crime. 

La, R.S. 14: 43, in pertinent part, provides: 

A. Third degree rape is a rape committed when the anal ... 

sexual intercourse is deemed to be without the lawful consent of a

victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following

circumstances: 

4) When the offender acts without the consent ofthe victim. 

A rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence presented in this case in the

light most favorable to the State, could find the evidence proved beyond a

reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of

innocence, all of the elements of third degree rape and the defendant' s identity as

the perpetrator of that offense against C. R. The State was required to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt the essential element of sexual penetration, however

slight. La. R.S. 14:41( B); State v. Robertson, 454 So. 2d 205, 208 ( La. App. I' 

Cir.), writ denied, 458 So. 2d 487 ( La. 1984). The evidence submitted to the jury, 

which included C.R.' s testimony that the defendant forced himself "on [ C.R.] and

in [ C.R.]" and that he put his " private part in [her] butt," was sufficient to prove the

element of anal sexual intercourse because it indicated the defendant put his penis

inside the anus of C.R. 

Louisiana Revised Statute 14: 41 was subsequently amended by La. Acts 2022, No. 173, 

1, effective August 1, 2422. 

7
Based on C.R.' s testimony and her description of the physical contact

between her and the defendant, the jury, based on their common knowledge and

understanding of the human anatomy, male and female, could rationally conclude

that there was anal penetration. The evidence was sufficient to support the finding

of sexual penetration beyond a reasonable doubt. See Robertson, 454 So. 2d at

The testimony of the victim alone is sufficient to prove the elements of the

offense. The trier of fact may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of

any witness. State v. Johnson, 2013- 0372 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12127/ 13), 2013 WL

6855334, * 3, writ denied, 2014- 0254 ( La. 11/ 26/ 14), 152 So. 3d 895. Further, in

reviewing the evidence, we cannot say that the fact finder' s determination was

irrational under the facts and circumstances presented. See State v. Ordodi, 2006- 

0207 ( La. 11129/ 06), 946 So. 2d 654, 662. An appellate court errs by substituting

its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that of the fact

finder and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis

of innocence presented to, and rationally rejected by, the fact finder. See State v. 

Calloway, 2007-2306 (La. 1/ 21/ 09), 1 So. 3d 417, 418 ( per curiam). 

This assignment of error is without merit. 

EXCESSIVE SENTENCE

In his final assignment of error, the defendant contends the trial court

imposed an excessive sentence. He argues, "[ t] he trial court made no mention of

the youthful [ defendant' s] potential for rehabilitation, no mention of whether or not

recidivism was likely, and redundantly referenced that the felony criminal sexual

offense involved an egregious sex act." In his motion for reconsideration of

sentence, the defendant argued the sentence was " constitutionally excessive and in

violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment." 

8
Article I, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits the imposition

of excessive punishment. Although a sentence may be within statutory limits, it

may violate a defendant' s constitutional right against excessive punishment and is

subject to appellate review. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So. 2d 762, 767 (La. 1979). A

sentence is constitutionally excessive ifit is grossly disproportionate to the severity

of the offense or is nothing more than a purposeless and needless imposition of

pain and suffering. State v. Trahan, 93- 1116 ( La. App. I" Cir. 5120194), 637 So. 

2d 694, 708. A sentence is grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and

punishment are considered in light of the harm done to society, it shocks the sense

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

within statutory limits, and the sentence imposed by it should not be set aside as

excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Currie, 2020- 

0467 (La. App. 1St Cir. 2/ 22/ 21), 321 So. 3d 978, 984. 

The Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth items that must be

considered by the trial court before imposing sentence. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 894. 1. 

The trial court need not recite the entire checklist of Article 894. 1, but the record

must reflect that it adequately considered the guidelines. In light of the criteria

expressed by Article 894. 1, a review for individual excessiveness should consider

the circumstances of the crime and the trial court' s stated reasons and factual basis

for its sentencing decision. Currie, 321 So. 3d at 984. 

Whoever commits the crime of third degree rape shall be imprisoned at hard

labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, for not more

than twenty-five years. La. R.S. 14: 43( B). Pursuant to the Habitual Offender Law, 

the defendant' s sentencing exposure as a second offender was not less than onethird the longest term ( 8 years and 4 months) and not more than twice the longest

term ( 50 years) prescribed for a first conviction. La. R.S. 15: 529. 1( A)( 1). The

M
defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years at hard labor without benefit of

probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. 

The trial court issued written reasons for its adjudication of the defendant as

a second habitual offender. The court noted therein that: 

In determining the length of the sentence to be imposed, this

Court considered, in addition to the sentencing guidelines, the

following factors: 

1. The Defendant' s instant conviction of Third Degree Rape upon a

victim who was 13 years [ old] at the time of the commission of the

crime; 

2. The age difference between the Defendant ( 24) and the victim ( 13) 

at the time of the crime; [51

3. The blood relation between the offender and the victim; 

4. The closeness in time between the Defendant' s Pt conviction and

the rape offense of 2019; 

5. The egregious sexual acts committed by the Defendant upon an

otherwise vulnerable 13 year [old] cousin. 

The court read those reasons at the sentencing hearing. 

A thorough review of the record reveals the trial court adequately considered

the criteria of Article 894. 1 and did not manifestly abuse its discretion in imposing

the sentence herein. While the court did not specifically mention the defendant' s

potential for rehabilitation," or " whether or not recidivism was likely," a

sufficient factual basis for the sentence is shown. See Currie, 321 So. 3d at 984- 85

r]emand for full compliance with Article 894. 1 is unnecessary when a sufficient

factual basis for the sentence is shown."). Further, there was nothing " redundant" 

in the court considering the sexual acts the defendant committed upon his young

cousin because the trial court was required to consider that information under the

sentencing guidelines. See Currie, 321 So. 3d at 984; see La. C.Cr.P. art. 

894. 1( A)(3) ("[ a] lesser sentence will deprecate the seriousness of the defendant' s

crime"), La. C. Cr.P. art. 894. 1( B)( 1) ("[ t]he offender' s conduct during the

5The defendant' s date of birth is March 5, 1995. Thus, he was twenty-three years of age

at the time ofthe offense herein. 

10
commission of the offense manifested deliberate cruelty to the victim"), La. 

C.Cr.P. art. 894. 1( B)( 2) ("[ t] he offender knew or should have known that the

victim of the offense was particularly vulnerable or incapable of resistance due to

extreme youth... ") and La. C. Cr.P. art. 894. 1( B)(21) ("[ a] ny other relevant

aggravating circumstances"). The sentence imposed was not grossly

disproportionate to the severity of the offense, and thus, was not unconstitutionally

excessive. 

As such, we find no merit to this assignment of error. 

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, we affirm the defendant' s conviction, 

habitual offender adjudication, and sentence. 

CONVICTION, HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, AND

SENTENCE AFFIRMED. 

11