Court Opinion

ID: 9378755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 15:04:32.300971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:56.089601
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                           STATE OF LOUISIANA

                               COURT OF APPEAL

                                FIRST CIRCUIT

                                NO. 2022 KA 0798

                           STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                    VERSUS

                               KEITH TROSCLAIR

                                      Judgment Rendered:      MAR 13 2023

                                Appealed from the
                          17th Judicial District Court
                       In and for the Parish of Lafourche
                                State of Louisiana
                                 Case No. 573126

              The Honorable Steven M. Miller, Judge Presiding

Prentice L. White                           Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Baton Rouge, Louisiana                      Keith Trosclair

Keith Trosclair                             Defendant/Appellant
Angola, Louisiana                           Pro Se

Kristine Russell                            Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney                           State of Louisiana
Joseph S. Soignet
Jason Chatagnier
Assistant District Attorneys
Thibodaux, Louisiana

             BEFORE:     THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ.
THERIOT, J.

        The defendant, Keith Trosclair, was charged by grand jury indictment with

one count of second degree murder, in violation of La. R.S.                       14: 30. 1. 1   The

defendant entered a plea of not guilty and, following a trial by jury, was convicted

of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.                   The trial court denied the

defendant' s motion for new trial and motion for post -verdict judgment of acquittal,

and sentenced the defendant to thirty-five years at hard labor.              The defendant now

appeals,
            with appellate counsel raising as its sole assignment of error that the

defendant' s thirty -five-year sentence is constitutionally excessive.             The defendant

also filed a pro se brief listing ten assignments of error. For the following reasons,

we affirm the defendant' s conviction and sentence.

                                              FACTS

        On December 5, 2017, officers with the Lafourche Parish Sheriff' s Office

were notified of a shooting on Highway 20 in the Chackbay area of Thibodaux,

Louisiana.     Upon arrival, officers observed the defendant kneeling in his yard with

his hands in the air, and the deceased, Christopher Saunders, lying face down in the

driveway. A 270 rifle was observed on the ground between the defendant and

Saunders, and Saunders was observed with a 1911 . 45 caliber semiautomatic pistol

holstered on his right hip. Further investigation revealed that Saunders was shot

three times; once in the back, once in the chest, and once in the back of the right

forearm.

        At trial, the defendant testified that, prior to the incident, Saunders was

walking from his mailbox towards the defendant' s property when the defendant

made eye contact with Saunders and told him " I saw what [                     you]     done to my

1 The defendant was previously tried and convicted on this charge by a 10- 2 jury verdict.        On
appeal, the defendant' s conviction and sentence were vacated pursuant to Ramos v. Louisiana,
590 U. S. ----, ----, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020), and his case remanded to the district
court for retrial.   State v. Trosclair, 2020- 0187 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 21120), (   unpublished),

2020 WL 7488133, at * 34.

                                                  2
cousin."      The defendant testified that Saunders replied " Mother F***    er, I' m going

to kill you[,]" at which point the defendant grabbed his rifle from his truck and

held it across his body, pointed it off to the side, and told Saunders not to threaten

him anymore.         The defendant testified that Saunders was heading in his direction

and then reached for the pistol holstered at his hip, at which point the defendant

fired his rifle three times at Saunders. The defendant then went inside his house,

called 911, and returned outside to wait for the police to arrive.       Stating that he

acted in self-defense, the defendant testified that, given the history of animosity

and threats between the two men, he was afraid for his life when Saunders reached

for his gun.

                       COUNSELED ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

       In his sole counseled assignment of error, the defendant argues that his

thirty -five-year sentence is constitutionally excessive based upon his advanced age

and the fact that he suffers from a mental disease or defect.

       The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I,

Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of excessive

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

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);

State v. Honea, 2018- 0018 (      La. App.   1st Cir. 12121118), 268 So. 3d 1117, 1120,

writ not considered, 2019- 00598 ( La. $ 112119), 279 So. 3d 915.           A sentence is

constitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the

offense or is nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and

suffering.     State v. Alexander, 2021- 1346 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 7/ 13122),   344 So. 3d

705,   725.      A   sentence   is grossly disproportionate if,   when   the    crime        and

punishment are considered in light of the harm done to society,                   it    is    so

disproportionate as to shock the sense of justice.       State v. Hurst, 99- 2868 ( La.

                                             3
App.   1st Cir. 1013100), 797 So. 2d 75, 83, writ denied, 2000- 3053 ( La. 1015101),

798 So. 2d 962.     The sentence imposed will not be set aside absent a showing of

manifest abuse of the trial court' s wide discretion to sentence within statutory
limits. State v. Lobato, 603 So. 2d 739, 751 ( La. 1992).

       Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 894. 1 sets forth the factors for

the district court to consider when imposing a sentence.      While the entire checklist

of 894. 1    need not be recited, the record must reflect that the district court

adequately considered the criteria. Alexander, 344 So. 3d at 725.        In light of the

criteria expressed by Article 894. 1, a review of individual excessiveness should

consider the circumstances of the crime and the trial court' s stated reasons and

factual basis for its sentencing decision.        Id.   Remand is unnecessary when a

sufficient factual basis for the sentence is shown. Id.

       Whoever commits the crime of manslaughter shall be imprisoned for not

more than forty years.     La. R.S. 14: 31( B).   In State v. Hartman, 2015- 1023 ( La.

App. 1st Cir. 2117116), 189 So. 3d 458, 460, writ denied, 2016- 0588 ( La. 3124117),

216 So. 3d 813,     this court considered whether a thirty -five-year sentence was

excessive where the defendant was charged with second degree murder and

convicted of manslaughter after arguing that she acted in self-defense.      There, the

defendant argued that the trial court failed to consider, among other things, that the

sentence was effectively a life sentence, expert testimony that she was unlikely to

reoffend, and evidence that the crime was committed after strong provocation. Id.

at 466.     The trial court noted the defendant' s lack of prior criminal history, the

volatile relationship between the defendant and the victim, and the traumatic effect

of the crime on the victim' s children before concluding that the defendant

manifested deliberate cruelty to the victim, and that any lesser sentence would

deprecate the seriousness of the offense. Id. at 467. On appeal, this court affirmed

the thirty -five-year sentence, finding that the trial court adequately considered the

                                             4
relevant statutory guidelines, including mitigating and aggravating factors, and that

the sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense.   Id,

        In this case, prior to imposing the defendant' s thirty -five-year sentence, the

trial court considered a victim impact statement from Saunders' s mother, as well as

a statement from the defendant, statements from several of the defendant' s family

members, and the defendant' s rap sheet showing that he was a first -offender.        The

trial court then engaged in a thorough discussion of each applicable factor

articulated in La. Code Grim. P. art. 594. 1.

        In aggravation, the trial court found that the defendant' s conduct manifested

deliberate cruelty when the defendant shot Saunders three times, including once in

the back, when damage from any one of the shots would have been sufficient to

kill him. Furthermore, the trial court found that the offense resulted in significant

permanent injury, the defendant used a dangerous weapon and foreseeably

endangered human life by discharging a firearm, and that the defendant was not

acting under strong provocation by Saunders where the defendant had the

opportunity to retreat into his home and where Saunders never pointed his gun at

the defendant. The trial court also considered the defendant' s lack of remorse and

failure to take accountability for his actions as aggravating factors.   In mitigation,

the trial court found that the defendant had no prior criminal history and that the

defendant' s imprisonment would cause hardship to his family members.         After the

sentence was announced, defense counsel objected to the trial court' s findings that

there was no provocation and the finding " that the victim did not do anything to

bring this onto himself."

        The right to appeal a sentence can be preserved by an oral motion to

reconsider at the sentencing hearing or,        thereafter,   by a written motion to

reconsider sentence filed within 30 days after the sentencing.      La. Code Crim. P.

art. 881. 1.   One purpose of the motion to reconsider is to allow the defendant to

                                            5
raise any errors that may have occurred in sentencing while the trial judge still has

the jurisdiction to change or correct the sentence. State v. Mims, 619 So. 2d 1059

 La. 1993) (   per curiam).   Here, the defendant orally objected to the trial court' s

findings regarding certain sentencing factors during the sentencing hearing, and

filed an untimely pro se Motion to Reconsider Sentence.

       On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court failed to consider his

age and mental condition, alleging that he was in his mid -sixties at the time of trial

and was diagnosed with anxiety,          depression,    and   schizophrenia.        However, the

defendant failed to urge these specific grounds for excessiveness before the trial

court and is therefore precluded from raising them for the first time on appeal.                See

State v. Leger, 2016- 240 (    La. App. 3d Cir.        1112116), 2016 WL 6495360, at * 3.

Furthermore,     although these issues were addressed in the defendant' s pro se

Motion to Reconsider Sentence, that motion was untimely.                  Louisiana Code of

Criminal Procedure article 881. 1( A)( 1)     requires a defendant or the State to file a

motion to reconsider sentence within thirty days of sentencing unless the trial court

sets a longer period of time at the time of sentencing. Here, the defendant did not

file his pro se motion until almost four months after being sentenced.                   Since the

defendant' s motion failed to comply with La.            Code Crim. P.       art.    881. 1,   he is

precluded from asserting those arguments on appeal.              See La. Code Crim P. art.

881. 1( E);   State v. Wilson, 2016- 0912 ( La.        App.    1st Cir. 2/ 22/ 17),     2017 WL

716085, at * 7, writ denied, 2017- 0392 ( La. 11/ 13/ 17), 229 So. 3d 924, writ denied,

2017- 0392 ( La. 2/ 23118), 237 So. 3d 1190.

       Moreover, the record shows that the trial court specifically found that the

defendant' s criminal conduct was not the result of circumstances unlikely to recur,

regardless of his age.        Further,   there is very little evidence to support the

defendant' s contention that he was diagnosed with a mental disease or defect that

impaired his perception of Saunders' s threat of violence.           The defense offered no

                                              E
medical testimony or documentation establishing the defendant' s potential mental

health diagnoses,     or how that may have impacted his perception of Saunders' s

actions.

         A thorough review of the record demonstrates a sufficient factual basis to

support the defendant' s sentence. As to provocation from the victim, the trial court

found, based on the evidence presented at trial,        that there was no provocation

sufficient to justify the defendant shooting Saunders three times, including once in

the back.     Describing the defendant as the aggressor, the trial court explained that

  a] ny additional provocation, if it existed, I described before as being this Wild

Wild West scene orchestrated by [ the defendant] when he stands there with his

rifle in front of him[,]" when Saunders never so much as pointed his gun at the

defendant.     The trial court then reiterated that the defendant knew exactly what he

was doing when he committed the offense when, by his own testimony, it took him

forty- five seconds to go into his vehicle,      get his gun, and shoot Saunders three

times.

         The trial court engaged in a thorough discussion of the relevant sentencing

guidelines,
               finding both aggravating and mitigating factors.        We find that the

sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense or shocking

to the sense of justice, and is justified by the record. Accordingly, the sentence is

not constitutionally excessive and this assignment of error lacks merit.

                        PRO SE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

         The defendant filed a pro se brief in this case.   However, without briefing or

developing them in any way, the defendant' s brief simply listed several questions

                                             7
regarding alleged trial issues.'          Pursuant to Rule 2- 12. 4( B)( 4) of the Uniform

Rules, Louisiana Courts of Appeal, all specifications or assignments of error must

be briefed, and the appellate court may consider as abandoned any specification or
assignment of error that has not been briefed.              A mere statement of an assigned

error in brief without argument or citation of authority does not constitute briefing.
See State v. Jarvis, 2021- 1181 (       La. App. 1 st Cir. 2125122), 340 So. 3d 1137, 1141-

42.

       Thus, we consider the issues listed in the defendant' s pro se brief abandoned

and his assignments of error are without merit. Accordingly, the defendant' s

conviction and sentence are affirmed.

       CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.

  The defendant lists the following as potential issues: not instructing the jury that the
defendant' s trial was a retrial; not allowing the defendant to have his documents with him on the
witness stand during trial; allowing into evidence statements regarding the defendant' s mental
health; returning physical evidence to the victim' s wife prior to retrial; allowing a witness to
change his testimony at trial; failure to issue subpoenas; allowing detectives to " stage" the crime
scene; not allowing into evidence 911 tapes, police reports, or other documents; allowing the
State to introduce evidence of four shell casings found at the crime scene; and ineffective
assistance   of counsel.   Furthermore, we note that as a general rule, a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel is more properly raised by an application for post -conviction relief in the
district court, where a full evidentiary hearing may be conducted under La. Code Crim. P. art.
930. The defendant would have to satisfy the requirements of La. Code Crim. P. art. 924 el seq.
to receive such a hearing. See State v. Bishop, 2010- 1840 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6110111), 68 So. 3d
1197, 1208, writ denied, 2011- 1530 ( La. 12/ 16/ 11), 76 So. 3d 1203 n.7.

                                                  8