State Of Louisiana v. William Bottoms, Jr. ( 2020 )

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2020 KA 0254
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
WILLIAM BOTTOMS, JR.
DATE OF JUD GMENT.- DEC 3 0 2020
ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
NUMBER 09- 17- 0327, SECTION 8, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
HONORABLE BRUCE BENNETT (AD HOC), JUDGE
Hillar C. Moore, Ill Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Stacy L. Wright
Assistant District Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Sherry Watters Counsel for Defendant -Appellant
New Orleans, Louisiana William Bottoms, Jr.
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., WELCH, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
Disposition: CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED.
CHUTZ, I
The defendant, William Bottoms, Jr., was charged by grand jury indictment
with two counts of second degree murder, violations of La. R.S. 14: 30. 1, and pled
not guilty on both counts. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty as charged
by unanimous verdicts on both counts. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of
life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.'
He now appeals contending the trial court abused its discretion in imposing
consecutive life sentences. For the following reasons, we affirm the convictions
and sentences.
FACTS
Megan Gaylord lived with the defendant and his parents at their home in
Greenwell Springs, Louisiana, for approximately two months prior to the offenses. ``
She was present with the defendant at the time of the offenses. According to
Gaylord, on June 1, 2017, at approximately 12: 30 a.m., the victims, " Mohammed"
sic] and " Dedrick," z gave the defendant and Gaylord a ride to Baker to purchase
heroin from " Jordan." The victims had " meth" in the vehicle, and the defendant
did a shot" of the methamphetamine before the group left for Baker.
The vehicle ran out of gas shortly after leaving for Baker. A police officer,
however, stopped and assisted the group by driving Mohammed to a gas station to
get gas. Gaylord testified " anybody that knows [ the defendant] knew he always
had a gun." When the police officer arrived, the defendant hid his gun in the
vehicle. After the police officer left with Mohammed, the defendant hid the
I
The trial court remanded the defendant to the custody of the sheriff for further disposition
to the department of corrections. Thus, the sentences were imposed at hard labor. See La. R.S.
15: 566( B); La. R.S. 15: 824( C)( 1); State v. Goff, 2013- 866, 2013- 867 ( La. App. 5th Cir. 4/ 9/ 14),
140 So. 3d 146, 152 n. 8, writ denied, 2014- 1018 ( La. 12/ 8/ 14), 153 So. 3d 440.
2
The victims were Dedrick Williams and Mohammad Hussain, who at times were
incorrectly referred to in the record as " Muhammed" or " Derrick."
A
weapon " in the trees" off the road. He retrieved the weapon after the police officer
was out of the area.
After retrieving the weapon, the defendant asked Mohammed if he would
like Gaylord to drive since Mohammed did not know where the defendant and
Gaylord were going. Mohammed agreed and the seating arrangement was as
follows: Gaylord was driving; the defendant was the front -seat passenger;
Mohammed was seated behind Gaylord; and Dedrick was seated next to
Mohammed. The drug purchase was completed when the group met Jordan at a
Jack- in-the- Box.
According to Gaylord, as they were driving back to the residence of the
defendant' s parents, the defendant turned around in his seat and " shot and then he
reached over and shot the other one." The defendant shot Dedrick first and then
Mohammed. Mohammed was still struggling to breathe after the first shot, so the
defendant shot him again. Gaylord testified the victims were not arguing with or
threatening the defendant when he shot them, and the defendant opened fire on
them without warning.
Gaylord testified that when she and the defendant were " around other
people," the defendant often would get nervous or paranoid and ask her " am I
good? Are we good?" If Gaylord reassured the defendant, " You' re fine. We' re
fine," he would calm down and be " all right." The defendant did not ask Gaylord
anything, however, before shooting the victims. Gaylord stated, " I feel like we
might have been around [ the victims] for too long and when they were in the back
seat[,] I don' t think [ the defendant] felt like he could ask me if he was all right or if
we were all right with them that close." She speculated that the shooting may have
been related to Dedrick showing the defendant a photograph of an " an AK -47 or
Gaylord claimed the
some kind of long gun" before the group left for Baker.
defendant interpreted the photograph as a threat. Gaylord indicated the defendant
91
did not know whom to trust because someone that they knew had " messed with"
the defendant by telling him there was " a hit out on [ the defendant]." Gaylord
further indicated the defendant' s paranoia was " a lot worse" when he was
shooting meth."
Gaylord testified that after she drove back to the home of the defendant' s
parents, the defendant "[ wiped] stuff down with bleach" and covered the victim' s
bodies with blanket or something. The defendant then waited until his mother
woke up to ask her to follow him and Gaylord as they returned " a friend' s car."
The defendant asked Gaylord to drive the vehicle with the victims' bodies while he
told her " where to go."
The victims' bodies were recovered in St. Helena Parish. Dedrick Williams
had sustained gunshot wounds to his forehead and left ear. Mohammed Hussain
had sustained gunshot wounds to the forehead, the bottom of his left ear, and the
left side of his mouth.
Gaylord additionally testified that approximately twenty-two days after the
instant offenses, the defendant was shot during another drug deal. He was carrying
the same gun he used to kill the victims.
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY EXCESSIVE SENTENCES
In his sole assignment of error, the defendant argues the trial court abused its
discretion in imposing consecutive life sentences. He argues the sentences are
unconstitutionally excessive under the circumstances of this offense and this
offender. He concedes that the offenses were " vile and serious," but argues he shot
both victims during a paranoia episode after drug use. He claims, "[ w]hile the
mandatory life sentence for each count is severe in itself, the order that the sentences
be served consecutively was unnecessarily excessive."
In his brief to this court, citing the minutes of an August 22, 2019 status
conference, the defendant alleges his motion to reconsider sentence was denied. The
4
referenced minutes, however, do not indicate that a motion to reconsider sentence
was denied or that the defendant made or filed a motion to reconsider the sentences.
Further, the record does not contain a written motion to reconsider sentence.
Additionally, a review of the transcript of the August 22, 2019 status conference also
fails to reveal that the defendant made or filed a motion to reconsider the sentences.
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 881. 1, provides, in pertinent
part:
A.( 1)In felony cases, within thirty days following the imposition of
sentence or within such longer period as the trial court may set at
sentence, the state or the defendant may make or file a motion to
reconsider sentence.
B. The motion shall be oral at the time of sentence or shall be in
writing thereafter and shall set forth the specific grounds on which the
motion is based.
E. Failure to make or file a motion to reconsider sentence or to include
a specific ground upon which a motion to reconsider sentence may be
based, including a claim of excessiveness, shall preclude the state or
the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or ftom urging
any ground not raised in the motion on appeal or review.
Furthermore, La. Code Crim. P. art. 881. 2( A)( 1) provides:
The defendant may appeal or seek review of a sentence based
on any ground asserted in a motion to reconsider sentence. The
defendant also may seek review of a sentence which exceeds the
maximum sentence authorized by the statute under which the
defendant was convicted and any applicable statutory enhancement
provisions.
One purpose of the motion to reconsider sentence is to allow the defendant
to raise any errors that may have occurred in sentencing while the district court still
has jurisdiction to change or correct the sentence. The defendant may point out
such errors or deficiencies, or may present argument or evidence not considered in
the original sentencing, thereby preventing the necessity of a remand for
resentencing. State v. Ybarzabal, 2018- 0555 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 25/ 19), 2019
WL 926891 at * 3.
E
The thirty -day deadline provided by La. Code Crim P. art. 881. 1( A)( 1)
prohibits a trial court from reconsidering its sentencing decision once the deadline
has passed.
An out -of t-ime motion to reconsider sentence is not contemplated by
the Code of Criminal Procedure nor allowed by the jurisprudence. Likewise, a
motion for appeal is not a substitute for a timely motion to reconsider sentence and
does not satisfy the requirements of La. Code Crim. P. art. 881. 1. Ybarzabal,
2019 WL 926891. at * 4.
A thorough review of the record indicates that the defendant did not orally
move for reconsideration of the sentences at the time of sentencing, nor did he
subsequently file a written motion to reconsider the sentences. Under La. Code
Crim. P. arts. 881. 1( E) and 881. 2( A)( 1), the failure to make or file a motion to
reconsider sentence or to include a specific ground upon which a motion to
reconsider may be based, shall preclude the defendant from raising an objection to
the sentence on appeal, including a claim of excessiveness. Ybarzabal, 2019 WL
926891 at * 4; State v. Ferguson, 2015- 0427 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 18/ 15), 181
So. 3d 120, 137, writ denied, 2015- 1919 ( La. 11/ 18/ 16), 210 So. 3d 282.
Consequently, the defendant' s failure to urge claims of excessiveness and specific
grounds for reconsideration of the sentences herein by oral or timely written
motion precludes our review of this assignment of error. Id. As such, we find that
review of the arguments raised in the defendant' s assignment of error is
procedurally barred.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's convictions and sentences are
affirmed.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED.
0