STATE v. RAGSDALE (2025)

Defendant, Bobbie L. Ragsdale, Jr. was convicted of obscenity in violation of La. R.S. 14:106.¹ He was sentenced to two years imprisonment at hard labor. On appeal, he challenges his sentence, arguing that two-years is unconstitutionally excessive. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant's sentence.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2022, defendant was charged by bill of information with obscenity in violation of La. R.S. 14:106 for an incident that occurred on July 4, 2022. Defendant pled not guilty on September 2, 2022. The case proceeded to trial by jury on August 21, 2024, where he was found guilty as charged. On September 3, 2024, defendant filed a Motion for Post Verdict Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial which the trial court denied. The trial court sentenced defendant on September 5, 2024, to two years imprisonment at hard labor, to run concurrent with the defendant's misdemeanor criminal trespass conviction arising out of this incident. On the same date, defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence and motion for appeal. On September 10, 2024, the trial court denied the motion to reconsider sentence and granted defendant's motion for appeal. This appeal follows.

FACTS

On July 4, 2022, at 9:18 p.m. the Jefferson Parish Sherriff's Office 911 Communication Center received a call from a male individual who identified himself as a camp post at Bayou Segnette State Park. The caller stated that he was informed by another camp post that there was a male near campsite ten with his pants down, offering candy to children. He reported that the male was driving a white minivan with ladders on it and that the male was parked near the bathrooms on campsite ten.²

Detective Brian Heintz with the Jefferson Parish Sherriff's Office testified that he was the responding officer, who was dispatched to Bayou Segnette State Park in response to the 911 call. Upon arrival, he testified to locating a white van matching the description on the call. As he approached the van, he encountered defendant, who exited the van and identified himself as the likely subject. Defendant informed him that he was a former Jefferson Parish police officer.³ Detective Heintz was also approached by park employees, including Ms. Joleen Cole. Based on the information obtained from Ms. Cole, Detective Heintz detained and arrested defendant for obscenity and for criminal trespass based on defendant being in an area of the park designated for “overnight access customers” only and because he found an expired park parking pass in defendant's car.⁴

In addition to speaking with park employees, Detective Heintz recounted interviewing two additional witnesses who were staying at the campground. While the witnesses partially corroborated Ms. Cole's statements, only Ms. Cole reported seeing the alleged conduct.

Joleen Cole testified that at the time of the incident on July 4, 2022, she was employed as a camp post at Bayou Segnette Park and was responsible for cleaning the bathrooms and laundry areas at the park. While making her evening rounds on July 4, 2022, she observed a white van parked across multiple spaces. The vehicle was parked in such a way that the driver could see the playground equipment located in that area. She recalled that the van was a few feet away from her, with its driver-side door open and defendant standing outside the open door. As she neared the van, Ms. Cole saw that defendant's shorts were drawn down around his knees and the defendant was masturbating. Ms. Cole recounted that she then proceeded to the front security gate of the park. After locking the security gate, she called the park manager to advise of the incident. She explained that the defendant eventually came to the front gate and as he approached her, he kept saying “I'm sorry.” When the police arrived, she gave her statement to Detective Heintz regarding the incident.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

In his sole assignment of error, defendant asserts that his two-year sentence, while within the statutory limits, is unconstitutionally excessive and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. He argues his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime and is a needless infliction of pain and suffering. Defendant also argues that the trial court failed to consider mitigating facts, specifically, that the park was closed at the time of the incident, no one was in the area, and that he was shielding himself between the door and the van. He contends these facts show he was not attempting to expose himself, or frighten anyone, and that he immediately followed Ms. Cole to the gate and apologized. Defendant further argues that the trial court failed to consider his lack of a criminal record, and his status as a former police officer. Finally, defendant argues that none of the aggravating circumstances listed in La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 apply in his case.

The State responds that defendant's sentence is not excessive given the circumstances of the crime, which involved public masturbation in an area of the park visible to children and motorists on one of the busiest holidays of the year, the Fourth of July. The State further contends that the trial judge gave adequate consideration to the sentencing factors set forth in La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, noted that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the crime, and recognized that defendant was in need of correctional treatment.

We first point out that defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 881 on the basis that the sentence was excessive, and did not serve the ends of justice. We have held that when the specific grounds for objection to the sentences, including alleged non-compliance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, are not specifically raised in the trial court, they are not included in the bare review for constitutional excessiveness, and the defendant is precluded from raising these issues on appeal. State v. Clark, 19-518 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/24/20), 296 So.3d 1281, 1291, writ denied, 21-62 (La. 3/9/21), 312 So.3d 585. Further, the failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence, or as in this case, the failure to state the specific grounds upon which the motion is based, limits a defendant to a review of the sentence for constitutional excessiveness only. State v. Harmon, 19-570 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/9/20), 301 So.3d 1278, 1288, writ denied, 20-1160 (La. 10/14/20), 303 So.3d 306. Accordingly, because defendant did not argue in his motion to reconsider sentence that the trial court did not adequately consider the factors of La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, defendant is limited to a review of his sentence for constitutional excessiveness.

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of excessive punishment. A sentence is considered excessive, even if it is within the statutory limits, if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense, or imposes needless and purposeless pain and suffering. State v. Adams, 23-427 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/24/24), 386 So.3d 676, 683. A sentence is grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the harm done to society, it shocks the sense of justice. State v. Barnes, 23-208 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/23), 379 So.3d 196, 203-04, writ denied, 24-136 (La. 9/24/24), 392 So.3d 1141.

In reviewing a sentence for excessiveness, the reviewing court shall consider the crime and the punishment in light of the harm to society and gauge whether the penalty is so disproportionate as to shock the court's sense of justice, while recognizing the trial court's wide discretion. Adams, 386 So.3d at 683. The trial judge is afforded broad discretion in sentencing, and a reviewing court may not set aside a sentence for excessiveness if the record supports the sentence imposed. La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.4(D). The sentence imposed should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Hankton, 20-388 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/3/21), 325 So.3d 616, 623, writ denied, 21-1128 (La. 12/7/21), 328 So.3d 425.

In reviewing a trial court's sentencing discretion, three factors are considered: 1) the nature of the crime; 2) the nature and background of the offender; and 3) the sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and other courts. However, there is no requirement that specific matters be given any particular weight at sentencing. State v. Kelson, 23-274 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/23), 379 So.3d 779, 784-85. A trial court should consider the defendant's personal history such as age, family ties, marital status, health, employment record, as well as his prior criminal record, seriousness of offense, and the likelihood of rehabilitation in determining an appropriate sentence. Adams, 386 So.3d at 686. A trial judge is in the best position to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a particular case and, therefore, is given broad discretion when imposing a sentence. Barnes, 379 So. 3d at 204.

The penalty provision for a first conviction of obscenity provides that whoever commits the crime “shall be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than two thousand five hundred dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not less than six months nor more than three years, or both.” La. R.S. 14:106(G)(1).

In the instant matter, defendant received a two-year sentence at hard labor. Before sentencing defendant, the trial judge stated the following:

Mr. Ragsdale, I'm familiar with this case. We tried it two weeks ago. I'll let you know that I don't like these types of crimes. People claim that they're, like, victimless, that no one is hurt. But there are a lot of people that go to public parks and they don't go there to see what Ms. Cole saw.

Ms. Cole said that she was driving by. She used to work at Ochsner. She was a nurse. She was driving by. And she was the one that was in charge of making sure that everything was okay in the bathroom area. She said as she passed by, she saw you with your pants down.

And I know counsel made argument to the jury to try to lessen it by stating that she could have confused that with your boxer shorts. But what people don't realize is, is that when you're a nurse, you deal with someone at birth and you deal with them as they get older and you deal with them in the hospital. So I think she's quite capable of telling the difference between somebody's privates and their underwear.

So she said that she saw what you were doing. She reported it. They came and they arrested you.

It's the Court's position that -- I don't believe that under the code of – I'm going to read it into the record as I always do. 894.1 under the sentencing guidelines under the criminal code, I believe that it falls under A, where the offender has been convicted of a felony, the court should impose a sentence of imprisonment if any of the following occurs:

One, there's an undo [sic] risk that during the period of suspended sentence or probation you would commit another crime. I'm not sure that that would happen, but these are the types of crimes that continually happen. So in an abundance of caution, I'm going to go with that.

There's also that you're in the need of correctional treatment or custodial environment that must be provided most effectively by commitment to an institution.

And any lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the defendant's crime.

With regard to the first factor, the nature of the crime, the record reflects that defendant was at Bayou Segnette State Park, a public park, on the evening of the Fourth of July, one of the busiest holidays, masturbating near the bathroom of the campgrounds in line of sight of the children's playground area. Additionally, the 911 caller reported that he was informed that defendant was offering candy to children in the area. Considering defendant's decision to pleasure himself in a public park near the children's playground, and considering the impact of his behavior on Ms. Cole, who witnessed his actions, and the effect on others who were present at the park on the holiday, we cannot say that the trial court's sentence is an abuse of discretion in light of the obscene nature of this behavior.

As to the second factor, the nature and background of the offender, we recognize that defendant had no criminal record, and was a former police officer. However, because defendant was trained as a police officer, he would have known his actions were criminal, and in light of his law enforcement background, his decision to publicly engage in this behavior is even more egregious. Also, the trial court recognized that the nature of this type of behavior indicates a certain propensity in an individual which often leads to reoffending and determined that a sentence with sufficient duration was necessary to ensure that defendant would receive effective correctional treatment. We agree. We further note that the record shows that defendant attempted to use his position as a former police officer to mitigate the consequences of his actions.⁵ We find no abuse of sentencing discretion considering the nature and background of the offender in this instance.

Regarding the third factor, consideration of sentences imposed for similar crimes, our review shows that this Court has upheld as constitutional an eighteen-month sentence for obscenity. In State v. Mequet, 96-238 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/28/96), 680 So.2d 98, 100, the defendant pled guilty to obscenity in violation of La. R.S. 14:106, for driving his truck alongside a school bus and masturbating within view of schoolchildren. The defendant was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment at hard labor, which he appealed as excessive. We upheld the sentence finding that the defendant's sentence was not excessive. The trial court took into account several mitigating factors, including the fact that defendant was in counseling, and that incarceration would place a hardship on the defendant's family. However, we stated that “[d]espite these factors, the trial court found that the crime was very serious and that incarceration was warranted.” Id. at 101.

In Mequet, the defendant was sentenced to eighteen months (the maximum sentence at the time) despite the trial court having found that he was attempting to rehabilitate in counseling and through the support of his family. As in Mequet, the trial court in this case found that the offense was serious, and that incarceration was warranted. In addition, considering there is no evidence in this matter that defendant was attempting to rehabilitate himself, the duration of defendant's sentence ensures correctional treatment.⁶

The Louisiana Supreme Court has stated, “[w]hile comparisons with other similar cases are useful in itself and sets the stage․the focus of sentence review remains on the character and propensities of the offender and the circumstances of the offense.” Adams, 386 So.3d at 687, citing State v. LeBlanc, 09-1355 (La. 7/6/10), 41 So.3d 1168, 1173. Furthermore, “[a]though a comparison of sentences imposed for similar crimes may provide guidance, ‘[i]t is well settled that sentences must be individualized to the particular offender and to the particular offense committed.’ ” Id. Moreover, the relevant inquiry is not whether a different sentence might have been more appropriate but whether the district court abused its broad sentencing discretion. Id., citing State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So.2d 1, 4.

Upon review, we find that the record supports the sentence imposed. We further find that because defendant's sentence is not out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense, does not purposely and needlessly inflict pain and suffering, does not otherwise shock our sense of justice and is consistent with sentences for similar crimes, the sentence is not unconstitutionally excessive. Additionally, the sentence imposed on defendant by the trial court was within the statutory sentence range. The trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion.

ERRORS PATENT DISCUSSION

We reviewed the record for errors patent according to La. C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1990). We found no errors patent.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant's sentence.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   Defendant was also charged with criminal trespass in connection with this incident, as he was not authorized to be in the area of the park where the incident occurred. The trial court tried the cases simultaneously, and found defendant guilty of criminal trespass. The trial court imposed a six-month sentence with credit for time served for defendant's misdemeanor conviction of criminal trespass. Defendant's felony and misdemeanor sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2.   Nancy Clay, an employee of the Jefferson Parish Sherriff’ Office 911 Communications Center, testified that she processed the 911 call and associated records relative to this incident. The audio of the call and the call log were admitted into evidence as State's Exhibits 1 and 2.

3.   Detective Heintz was equipped with a body-worn camera on July 4, 2022. His body-worn camera was admitted and published for the jury as State's Exhibit 5. The video captured defendant who was wearing a black tank top. Defendant stated that he was employed with “JP.” Detective Heintz testified that he used the word “26,” which meant a police officer. He stated he was going to take a shower, and “she” told him he was not staying in the campground area. He stated that he paid for parking and that “she” was being obnoxious. He explained that he worked for “Watermill Express.” (State's Exhibit 5).

4.   Defendant's parking pass was valid through July 2nd.

5.   The record reflects that when defendant approached Detective Heintz, he told him he was formerly in law enforcement. The record also reflects that at a bench conference, defense counsel reiterated to the trial court that defendant was a former police officer. The trial court stated, “[T]hat makes it worse,” and “[H]e tried to use that in jail when they put him in solitary.”

6.   While Ms. Cole testified that defendant apologized to her at the gate, the record reflects that defendant was offered a plea deal of a one-year suspended sentence with one year probation. Defense counsel informed the trial court that he discussed this “very generous deal” with defendant, but defendant opted to go to trial “to profess his innocence.”

MARCEL, J.