Case Name: STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Helen McKINNIE, aka Kathy Joe Nelson, Appellant
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2000-03-01
Citations: 755 So. 2d 367
Docket Number: No. 33,175-KA
Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Helen McKINNIE, aka Kathy Joe Nelson, Appellant.
Judges: Before BROWN, CARAWAY and PEATROSS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 755
Pages: 367–367

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Helen McKINNIE, aka Kathy Joe Nelson, Appellant.
No. 33,175-KA.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
March 1, 2000.
Amy Clark Ellender, Louisiana Appellate Project, Mer Rouge, Counsel for Appellant.
Richard Ieyoub, Attorney General, James M. Bullers, District Attorney, Carl L. Ekendahl, Assistant District Attorney, Counsel for Appellee.
Before BROWN, CARAWAY and PEATROSS, JJ.

Opinion:
BROWN, J.,
Defendant, Helen McKinnie a/k/a Kathy Joe Nelson, pled guilty to one count of felony theft. She had been caught shoplifting clothes valued at $943 from Dillards in Pierre Bossier Mall. She was given the maximum sentence of ten years at hard labor.
Defendant, who is 39 years old, argues that her sentence should have been mitigated because: none of her past offenses were crimes of violence; her last conviction was in 1993 (approximately 6 years prior to the instant offense); she was high on crack cocaine at the time of the instant offense; and, the amount of the theft was under $1,000. We disagree.
Over the past 18 years, defendant, who had been arrested 17 times, had been convicted in ten theft-related cases, not including the instant offense. At a minimum, defendant is a fifth felony offender. If she had been charged as a habitual offender, she faced a life sentence.
In addition to her prior record, the judge considered that defendant had lied about her name under oath and denied being physically and verbally combative to the security officer at Dillards at the time of her arrest.
Considering defendant's background, the sentence is neither grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense, shocking to the sense of justice nor is it a manifest abuse of the district court's broad discretion. Therefore, the sentence is not constitutionally excessive.
The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.