STATE v. JACKSON (2026)

Daphney Jackson (hereinafter “Defendant”) appeals her sentences for manslaughter and aggravated assault with a firearm. After consideration of the record before this Court, and the applicable law, we affirm Defendant's sentences for manslaughter and aggravated assault with a firearm.

Facts Procedural History

On March 20, 2022, Defendant was a patron at Cat's Meow, a bar located on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, Louisiana. After a dispute erupted between Defendant and another group of individuals, Defendant fired multiple shots in the direction of the group. One of Defendant's bullets fatally struck Spencer Hudson and another bullet grazed the neck of Ambrosia Hayes.

Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged by bill of indictment with one count of second-degree murder, pursuant to La. R.S. 14:30.1; one count of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm, pursuant to La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:30.1; and one count of obstruction of justice, pursuant to La. R.S. 14:130.1. Defendant was arraigned and pled not guilty to all counts. A four-day jury trial commenced, at the conclusion of which the jury returned the following responsive verdicts: guilty of manslaughter in violation of La. R.S. 14:31; guilty of aggravated assault with a firearm in violation of La. R.S. 14:37.4; and not guilty of obstruction of justice.

On November 2, 2023, Defendant appeared for sentencing where numerous victim impact statements were heard. The district court sentenced Defendant to forty years imprisonment, at hard labor, for the manslaughter conviction and ten years, at hard labor, for the aggravated assault with a firearm conviction—each sentence to run consecutively. On December 1, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the district court's decision to order the sentences run consecutively. The district court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

Errors Patent Review

In accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 920, this Court reviews all criminal appeals for errors patent on the face of the record. An error patent is one “that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2). A review of the record reveals no errors patent.

Discussion

Defendant asserts two assignments of error:¹

1. Was a fifty-year maximum consecutive sentence grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime, resulting in a purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering;

2. Did the [district] court err in failing to articulate case-specific reasons for imposing maximum consecutive sentences.

We will discuss each argument separately.²

Excessive Sentence

In her first assignment of error, Defendant contends the district court imposed constitutionally excessive sentences. The district court sentenced Defendant to serve forty years at hard labor on the manslaughter conviction and ten years at hard labor on the aggravated assault with a firearm conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively. “A [district court] has broad discretion when imposing a sentence and a reviewing court may not set a sentence aside absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” State v. Bethley, 2022-0849, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/21/23), 368 So.3d 1148, 1158 (quoting State v. Smith, 2001-2574, p. 7 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So.2d 1, 4) (citation omitted). When reviewing a claim of an excessive sentence, this Court must “consider the punishment and the crime in light of the harm to society caused by its commission and determine whether the penalty is so disproportionate to the crime committed as to shock our sense of justice.” State v. Bonanno, 384 So.2d 355, 358 (La. 1980). In an excessive sentence claim, the relevant question presented before the Court is not whether another sentence would be more appropriate, but whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence. State v. Cook, 1995-2784, p. 3 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957, 959.

Defendant contends the sentences are constitutionally excessive because the imposition of the maximum sentences is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime committed. Defendant was convicted of manslaughter and aggravated assault with a firearm, as responsive verdicts to the charges of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder with a firearm. The maximum sentence for manslaughter is forty years and aggravated assault with a firearm carries a maximum sentence of ten years. See La. R.S. 14:31(B) and La. R.S. 14:37.4(C). The district court sentenced Defendant to forty years on the manslaughter conviction and ten years on the assault with a firearm conviction—for a total of fifty years. Article 1, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 provides that “[n]o law shall subject any person ․ to cruel, excessive, or unusual punishment.” “A sentence, although within the statutory limits, is constitutionally excessive if it is ‘grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime’ or is ‘nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering.’ ” State v. Gorby, 2003-1666, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/11/04), 868 So.2d 193, 195-96 (quoting State v. Caston, 477 So.2d 868, 871 (La.App. 4th Cir.1985)). Generally, a reviewing court must determine whether the trial judge adequately complied with the sentencing guidelines as set forth in La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 and whether the sentence is warranted in light of the particular circumstances of the case. State v. Rickmon, 2023-0048, p. 21 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/30/23), 372 So.3d 60, 74. If La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 is adequately complied with, the reviewing court must “determine whether the sentence imposed is too severe in light of the particular defendant and the circumstances of the case.” State v. Grant, 2024-0430, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/20/24), 402 So.3d 109, 112 (citations omitted). The reviewing court must also keep in mind that maximum sentences should be reserved for the most egregious violators of the offense so charged. State v. Burnett, 2023-0686, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/9/24), 398 So.3d 60, 67 (citations omitted).

The facts are undisputed that Defendant was involved in an altercation with several patrons who were leaving the bar when she began shooting. The record also reflect that Defendant acknowledged that she brandished a weapon while inside the bar, and testimony established that Defendant fired her weapon into the crowd. At the sentencing hearing, the district court was presented with victim impact statements regarding the effects of Defendant's actions. Spencer Hudson's family and friends explained how their lives have been upended by the tragic loss and described the impact of losing such an integral part of their family. Ambrosia Hayes also testified to the traumatic effects of being grazed by one of Defendant's bullets. While we recognize that Defendant is a first-time offender, her convictions were for violent crimes and we find the facts underlying the convictions justify the sentences imposed. As noted by the district court, Defendant had a blatant disregard for human life. Given the nature of the crime and the district court's broad discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory limits, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to the maximum sentences allowed by law for manslaughter and aggravated assault with a firearm.

Defendant also argues that the sentences are excessive because the district court ruled that the sentences are to run consecutively, rather than concurrently. Specifically, she asserts that the consecutive sentences are excessive because the crimes resulted from the same act and she is a first-time offender. La. C.Cr.P. art. 883 provides, in pertinent part,

If the defendant is convicted of two or more offenses based on the same act or transaction, or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively. Other sentences of imprisonment shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that some or all of them be served concurrently.

“Although sentences for crimes arising out of a single course of conduct are generally served concurrently, the imposition of consecutive sentences for such crimes is not automatically excessive.” State v. Duckett, 2019-0319, p. 13 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/18/19), 288 So.3d 167, 176 (quoting State v. Collins, 557 So.2d 269, 272 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990)). “Consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court do not automatically constitute excessiveness.” Id. (citing State v. Watkins, 1990-1603 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1993), 621 So.2d 157, 160). “A court may impose consecutive sentences for same transaction crimes if the court expressly directs the imposition of consecutive sentences and articulates appropriate factors that justify the imposition of such sentences.” Duckett, 2019-0319, p. 13, 288 So.3d at 176 (citation omitted). The district court expressly imposed consecutive sentences, stating that the sentences were “to run consecutive.”

In sentencing Defendant, the district court considered the victim impact statements, noted Defendant's disregard for human life and the extreme effects caused by Defendant's actions of shooting into a crowd of people. The district court imposed sentences within the statutory guidelines for each of the offenses of which Defendant was convicted. Furthermore, the district court determined that the sentences imposed were warranted due to the significant impact Defendant's actions had on the community, noting that “we cannot have a community that brings guns to Bourbon Street and so effortlessly, so carelessly, opens fire without regard for anyone around, and without regard for the safety of others.” We find the district court provided an adequate factual basis to impose consecutive sentences. The district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence and we do not find that Defendant's sentences are constitutionally excessive. Accordingly, we find no merit to this assignment of error.

Sentencing Guidelines

By her final assignment of error, Defendant contends the district court erred in failing to consider the sentencing guidelines set forth in La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, which provides in pertinent part:

A. When a defendant has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, the court should impose a sentence of imprisonment if any of the following occurs:

(1) There is an undue risk that during the period of a suspended sentence or probation the defendant will commit another crime.

(2) The defendant is in need of correctional treatment or a custodial environment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution.

(3) A lesser sentence will deprecate the seriousness of the defendant's crime.

***

C. The court shall state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor in imposing sentence.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1(A) and (C). “The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that although [La. C.Cr.P. art.] 894.1 provides useful guidelines for the determination of the nature and length of a sentence, compliance with its provisions is not an end in itself.” State v. Dauzart, 2011-0688, p. 13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/21/12), 89 So.3d 1214, 1222-23 (citation omitted). While compliance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 sentencing guidelines is mandatory, “[w]hen the [district] court has not complied with La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, resentencing the defendant is unnecessary when the record demonstrates an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed.” State v. Stewart, 2024-0454, p. 30 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/14/25), –––So.3d––––, 2025 WL 1414856 at *15, writ denied, 2025-00757 (La. 1/21/26), 424 So.3d 1097 (citation omitted).

The district court did not specify which factors of La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 it considered in determining Defendant's sentence. However, we do not find this omission fatal. The record demonstrates an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed. Dauzart, 2011-0688, p. 13, 89 So.3d at 1223 (“A remand is unnecessary where the record clearly shows an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed, even where there has not been full compliance with [La. C.Cr.P. art.] 894.1.”) (citation omitted). The district court referenced the significant impact of Defendant's actions on the victims and their families and friends. Further, Defendant's actions of carrying a gun into a bar and shooting into a crowd of people, multiple times, created a risk of death or harm to everyone in the area thus, satisfying several of the factors set forth in La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1. We find the imposition of a lesser sentence against Defendant “would deprecate the seriousness” of Defendant's crime which resulted in the death of Spencer Hudson and injuring of Ambrosia Hayes. La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1(A)(3). As such, we find the record before this Court provides an adequate factual basis for the sentences imposed for manslaughter and aggravated assault with a firearm. Accordingly, we find no merit to this assignment of error.

Conclusion

After a review of the record, we affirm Defendant's sentences for manslaughter and aggravated assault with a firearm.

SENTENCES AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   Defendant's brief does not list assignments of error but rather, provides “issues” for this Court to review.

2.   Defendant does not appeal her convictions, rather she only seeks review of the sentences imposed.

Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase