State Of Louisiana v. Keith A. Trosclair ( 2023 )

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 1059La. 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