STATE v. JOHNSON (2025)

Defendant, Lance R. Johnson, appeals his sentence following a conviction for soliciting for prostitutes under the age of eighteen (count one) and indecent behavior with a juvenile (count two). For the reasons that follow, we affirm defendant's convictions and affirm his sentence on count two. However, because the trial court failed to observe the twenty-four-hour sentencing delay mandated by La. C.Cr.P. art. 873, we vacate defendant's sentence on count one and remand the matter for resentencing.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 27, 2023, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of information charging defendant with soliciting for prostitutes under the age of eighteen in violation of La. R.S. 14:83(B)(2) (count one) and indecent behavior with a juvenile in violation of La. R.S. 14:81 (count two). Defendant was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty on August 11, 2023.

Trial commenced on October 29, 2024, and on the following day, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty as charged on each count. On November 13, 2024, defendant filed a “Motion in Post Verdict Judgment of Acquittal, Arrest of Judgment, and Alternatively Motion for New Trial.” On November 14, 2024, the trial court denied the motion. After victim impact statements were heard, the court sentenced defendant to twenty-five years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence as to count one. As to count two, the trial court sentenced defendant to seven years imprisonment at hard labor. The trial court ordered counts one and two to run concurrently with each other. The trial court also ordered defendant to register as a sex offender for twenty-five years.

On November 15, 2024, defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence and a Motion for Appeal. The motion for appeal was granted by the trial court on November 18, 2024. On December 2, 2024, the trial court heard arguments regarding the motion for reconsideration of the sentence and ultimately denied the motion on the same date.

On appeal, defendant argues that his twenty-five-year sentence for count one is excessive.

FACTS

Zyairre Lewis was a special education teacher at Hazel Park/Hilda Knoff Elementary School. In September 2022, she had a seventh-grade special education student named R.T.¹ Ms. Lewis testified that R.T. had behavioral issues that interfered with his academics. R.T. would often come to her with different issues or concerns because he trusted her.

On September 20, 2022, R.T. disclosed to Ms. Lewis that a teacher's assistant, defendant Lance Johnson, offered him one hundred dollars to suck his penis and told him that he would like to meet him after school. She explained that defendant had been working at the school for a few months. Ms. Lewis told R.T. that he needed to be honest about the allegations, and he stated that he was being honest with her. She informed R.T. that she was going to have to tell his mother and take him to the principal's office to report the incident. Ms. Lewis completed an incident report, which was standard practice when a student disclosed something. Ms. Lewis read R.T.’s statement from the incident report as follows:

During eighth grade ceremony in June, Mr. Johnson asked me to walk to Room 15 with him. He told me I don't seem like a little boy. Your thing look big and I can see the print. Do you have pictures of video of you having sex? I told him, no. Then he said he was getting scared because we were in the classroom too long, and he didn't want to bring attention to us.

The next day he asked where I stay at and he asked me when you gonna let me suck your d**k. He asked me for a hug and he was trying to touch me on my body.

In August ‘22, he asked how was my summer. He told me he missed me. Then the second week of school, he came to talk to me at my house.

* * *

In front of my house he asked me to suck my -- of course the d, with the asterisks, that was d**k. He mumbled it because my uncle was there.

Yesterday, 9-19-22, he asked was -- he was flirting with me, asking me questions about my personal life and my sex life. I told him I, the f, with the asterisks was of course the curse word, f**k. I f**k girls. Why you keep asking me about my personal life?

Then he told me he would give me eighty dollars to lick me all over. Every day I'm at school he look for me. He followed me yesterday around twelve forty-five. I don't know what room, twelve forty-five to

* * *

Two o'clock p.m., he was down the hallway around by Ms. Hanlock's (spelled phonetically). He was looking at me and he was sticking his tongue out between his two fingers towards me.

He came to my house after school trying to ask me sexual favors. My brother, Chris, was there. He makes me very uncomfortable. I'm afraid to pass him. I don't like to be at school knowing I have to see him.

After she filled out the report, Ms. Lewis notified the principal and assistant principal. When R.T.’s mother arrived at the school, R.T. met her in her car and told her what occurred. R.T.’s mother was very upset. She met with the principal, the assistant principal, and R.T. Ms. Lewis was not involved in this meeting.

Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office (“JPSO”) Detective Michael Miles was assigned to investigate the sexual abuse claim made by R.T. in September 2022. He stated that R.T. complained that defendant, a teacher at the school, offered him money to allow defendant to perform oral sex on him. R.T. had an interview at the Children's Advocacy Center (“CAC”). Detective Miles was present to monitor the interview. He stated that the allegations that R.T. made in the interview were the same as the ones he gave in his initial complaint.² Detective Miles also met with R.T. He testified that R.T.’s statement to him was consistent with the initial complaint and the CAC interview.

As part of his investigation, Detective Miles located surveillance cameras at the school. He located security footage that corroborated, with both the date and time, R.T.’s report that he met defendant in the bathroom. R.T.’s mother also provided Detective Miles with doorbell video from R.T.’s grandmother's house, which was located at 311 Hanson Place.

Detective Miles testified that R.T. said that defendant told him to meet him by “the bricks,” which was known in the community as some apartments on Jefferson Highway, between the 700 and 800 blocks. R.T. told Detective Miles that he and defendant met on Jefferson Highway near his grandmother's house on Third Street, and that defendant picked him up at a “construction company.” Based on this information, Detective Miles went to that area and found two cameras attached to a building located on 725 Third Street. He spoke to the owner, who allowed him to review the surveillance footage. The footage was dated September 19, 2022, with a timestamp of 3:07 p.m. In the footage, a silver vehicle headed westbound stops and picks up an individual, and continues driving. The vehicle then comes back after making a U-turn, and R.T. is seen getting out of the vehicle and walking back towards his grandmother's house. Detective Miles met with R.T. and his mother to review the video.

Detective Miles also showed R.T. several photographs. Detective Miles showed R.T. a picture of defendant. R.T. signed the picture, confirming that the individual in the photo was defendant. Detective Miles showed R.T. a photograph of the silver Honda that R.T. said defendant was driving. The photo was taken from the surveillance footage at the construction company. Detective Miles also showed R.T. a still shot from the doorbell camera from 311 Hanson Place that captured the clothing that R.T. was wearing the day he was picked up. Additionally, a still shot from surveillance video from Hazel Park Elementary School showed R.T. and defendant leaving the bathroom at the school.

Detective Miles testified regarding various videos, which he identified as different camera angles from the hallway of Hazel Park. One video captured the hallway and bathroom area with a timestamp of 13:23 (1:23 p.m.) on September 19, 2022. Detective Miles stated that the footage captured R.T. walking in the hallway and going into the bathroom. Defendant was seen walking past the bathroom and backing up to go in the bathroom with R.T. Defendant was then seen coming out of the bathroom followed by R.T., who followed defendant down the hall. Detective Miles testified that defendant and R.T. are seen walking to a door that led outside to the playground area.

Detective Miles testified that another video showed defendant walking toward R.T.’s class. R.T. told him when defendant walked past his class, he looked in the doorway and made gestures. The timestamp on the video was 14:11 (2:11 p.m.) and was dated September 19, 2022. Detective Miles stated that surveillance video from the school showed defendant left at the end of the day at 2:45 p.m. on September 19, 2022.

Detective Miles also described various portions of footage from the doorbell camera at R.T.’s grandmother's house. One video was from the day defendant passed by and the grandmother confronted R.T. In another video, Detective Miles explained that “supposedly” R.T. was talking to defendant in his vehicle. Detective Miles testified that in an additional video, R.T. was seen wearing the clothing he was wearing when he met defendant on Third Street.

Defendant was arrested at his residence in LaPlace. Photographs were taken at his residence, and the silver vehicle that R.T. exited from in the surveillance video was located at defendant's address. Detective Miles testified that he obtained a photo from St. John the Baptist Parish's crime cameras of defendant driving into his neighborhood in his vehicle. The timestamp on the photo was 4:02 p.m. on September 19, 2022. Detective Miles obtained a search warrant for defendant's cell phone records and eventually received the records.

JPSO Sergeant Anthony Buttone was accepted as an expert in call detail records and geolocation analysis. He testified that he analyzed the phone records that were collected in the instant matter. The records included call detail records and timing advanced records from defendant's T-Mobile cell phone. Sergeant Buttone testified that he reviewed Detective Miles’ report and confirmed the following from the “raw data.” On September 19, 2022, the data showed that defendant's device left LaPlace and relocated to Hazel Park between approximately 7:15 and 7:19 a.m. The device remained in that vicinity until approximately 2:48 p.m. and then started to move away from the elementary school. After departing the school, the device was in the vicinity of 725 Third Street (Reliable Soil Company) at approximately 3:05 p.m. He testified that at approximately 4:03 p.m., the device was back in the vicinity of defendant's residence in LaPlace.

Latasha Threats testified that she had a twenty-year-old daughter and a sixteen-year-old son, R.T.³ In 2022, she and her children were living with her mother on 311 Hanson Place. She stated that R.T. was in “SPED” (special education) classes at Hazel Park, and he was not doing well in the classes.

She testified that on R.T.’s last day of school at Hazel Park, R.T. told her about defendant “harassing him.” She believed what R.T. told her because he previously told her, after starting school at Hazel Park, that he felt uncomfortable. She stated that he told her “[t]hey got this gay teacher.” She did not take R.T.’s statements to heart at that time. Ms. Threats stated that after R.T. told her what defendant did to him, she dropped him off at her mother's house and went to the JPSO to make a police report. She stated that she later brought R.T. to the JPSO, and he was interviewed at the CAC. Ms. Threats testified that she obtained the doorbell footage from her mother's house and gave it to the JPSO. She was not asked for it, but gave it to them on her own. She testified that in one of the videos, R.T. told his grandmother that he got eighty dollars.⁴

R.T. testified that he was attending a school in Ruston. He started going there because he got caught with marijuana. R.T. testified that he attended Hazel Park for approximately two years. He did not like it there because of defendant. He explained that defendant whispered in his ear and touched him all over his back. R.T. testified that defendant “said he wanted me to suck his d**k or to suck my d**k.” Defendant would also tell him that he smelled good. This occurred for approximately “a year or two.” R.T. testified that defendant's actions made him feel uncomfortable and it scared him.

R.T. testified that on the day of the eighth-grade graduation, defendant called for him, and they went into his classroom. He stated that defendant asked him if he was gay and asked him if he had his “d**k” pictures in his phone so he could see them. R.T. testified that on another occasion, defendant approached him in the hallway of Hazel Park and told him to meet him on Jefferson Highway. Defendant told him he would pay him to have sex with him. R.T. testified that later that day, he got off the bus after school and walked up Jefferson Highway. Defendant was in a silver two-door car. R.T. was wearing khaki “Dickie” pants that day. He got into defendant's car, and defendant stated that he was scared he was going to lose his job. R.T. testified that he asked defendant where his money was, and R.T. took the money and ran. R.T. explained that defendant told him, “oh you got a free one.” He stated that defendant stopped at the “dirt company” and let him out. R.T. testified that he got into the car because he was planning on “jacking” defendant.⁵ R.T. stated that the money was in twenty-dollar bills, and he spent it on snacks. He testified that defendant did not try to touch him in the car, but stated defendant wanted to have sex with him. He was shocked and reported defendant to Ms. Lewis.

R.T. was shown the surveillance footage of the hallway at Hazel Park. He identified himself going into the bathroom and defendant following him. R.T. testified that he remembered that defendant told him something, but could not recall what he said. He stated that it was weird, and he was getting tired of defendant harassing him. He could not remember what happened when they walked out of the bathroom.

R.T. was also shown footage of the “dirt company” from September 19, 2022. He identified himself getting out of defendant's car and stated he was walking back to his grandmother's house. R.T. explained that prior to September 19, 2022, defendant went to his grandmother's house. He asked defendant how he knew his address, but he could not remember his answer.

R.T. was shown the doorbell footage from his grandmother's house at 311 Hanson Place. He identified his grandmother on the footage and testified that his grandmother was telling him to get away from defendant's car because she did not know who it was. He testified that he saw defendant's car in the video and pointed it out to the jury.⁶ In another video, R.T. identified himself wearing a shirt and khaki pants—what he was wearing the day he was in defendant's car. The video footage showed him right after he got out of the car. R.T. testified that he disclosed what defendant was doing to him because defendant could have been doing it to someone else who could not defend themselves. He identified defendant in the courtroom.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Although sufficiency of the evidence was not assigned as error by defendant on appeal, we have considered sufficiency of the evidence pursuant to State v. Raymo, 419 So.2d 858, 861 (La. 1982). See also State v. Russell, 448 So.2d 798 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1984), writ denied, 450 So.2d 956 (La. 1984). Upon review, we find the State presented sufficient evidence under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), to establish the essential statutory elements of soliciting for prostitutes under the age eighteen and indecent behavior with a juvenile. Accordingly, we affirm defendant's convictions and affirm his sentence on count two.

ERRORS PATENT REVIEW

The record was reviewed 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). Upon review, we find the trial court failed to observe the twenty-four-hour sentencing delay mandated by La. C.Cr.P. art. 873.

On November 14, 2024, after the trial court denied defendant's “Motion in Post Verdict Judgment of Acquittal, Arrest of Judgment, and Alternatively Motion for New Trial,” the record reflects that victim impact statements were heard. The trial court then asked the parties, “Anything else?” Both the State and defendant responded that there was nothing further. The trial court then imposed defendant's sentences.

The record contains no indication that defendant expressly waived sentencing delays after his motion was denied.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 873 requires a twenty-four-hour delay in sentencing after the denial of a motion for a new trial or in arrest of judgment, unless the defendant expressly waives the delay. State v. Key, 23-167 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/23), 379 So.3d 96, 125. When the defendant challenges the sentence imposed and the imposed sentence is not mandatory, the failure to observe the twenty-four-hour delay mandated by law cannot be considered harmless error. State v. Granado-Gonzalez, 23-387 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/3/24), 392 So.3d 909, 918, writ denied, 24-905 (La. 11/20/24), 396 So.3d 66. Generally, when a defendant challenges a non-mandatory sentence and the delay is not waived, the defendant's sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing. Id.

The Louisiana Supreme Court stated in State v. Kisack, 16-797 (La. 10/18/17), 236 So.3d 1201, 1205-06, cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1160, 138 S.Ct. 1175, 200 L.Ed.2d 322 (2018), that a defendant's pronouncement of his readiness for sentencing may operate as an express waiver of the twenty-four-hour sentencing delay, but a defendant's mere participation in the sentencing hearing is insufficient to constitute an express waiver as required by La. C.Cr.P. art. 873.

In State v. Loggins, 23-519 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/30/24), 397 So.3d 1265, 1288, the trial court denied a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal and for a new trial and imposed the defendant's sentences after a victim impact statement was read. The trial court then asked the defense if there was anything further, and the defense answered negatively. This Court found that this was not an express waiver of the requisite sentencing delay. This Court explained that the defendant's life sentence for the first degree murder conviction was mandatory and the defendant did not challenge it. However, the defendant challenged his sentence as to the count of obstruction of justice, which did not carry a mandatory sentence. Therefore, this Court vacated the sentence imposed for the obstruction of justice conviction, remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing as to that count, and pretermitted discussion of the defendant's consecutive sentence assignment of error. Id.

In the present matter, defendant challenges the sentence imposed on count one, which was not mandatory, and he did not expressly waive the mandatory statutory sentencing delay. Therefore, we vacate the sentence imposed on count one, remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing, and pretermit the review and discussion of defendant's assignment of error. See Loggins, supra. See also State v. Francis, 19-227 (La. 4/29/19), 268 So.3d 289 (per curiam) (The Supreme Court found that the defendant did not waive the delay and the error in failing to observe the delay was not harmless because the defendant challenged his manslaughter sentence. The court vacated the sentence and remanded the matter to the district court for resentencing.)

As to the sentence on count two, which is not challenged on appeal, we find that the failure to waive the delay is harmless. Absent a showing of prejudice, when a defendant does not waive the delay afforded in Article 873, and does not challenge the penalty imposed, the error may be harmless. State v. Perez-Espinosa, 19-601 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/22/20), 302 So.3d 598, 603. Thus, absent a showing of prejudice from the failure to afford the statutory delay, reversal of a prematurely imposed sentence is not required. Id. As such, we find the error to be harmless as to count two. See State v. Chest, 24-199 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/26/25), 406 So.3d 684, 701, writ denied, 25-387 (La. 5/20/25), 409 So.3d 222.

DECREE

Defendant's convictions and his sentence on count two are affirmed. Defendant's sentence on count one is vacated and the matter is remanded for resentencing.

CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCE ON COUNT TWO AFFIRMED; SENTENCE ON COUNT ONE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING

FOOTNOTES

1.   The victim in this matter is referred to by his initials, “R.T.,” in the interest of protecting crime victims who are minors, as well as victims of sexual offenses as set forth in La. R.S. 46:1844(W)(3). See State v. R.W.B., 12-453 (La. 12/4/12), 105 So.3d 54; see also Uniform Rules–Courts of Appeal, Rule 5-2.

2.   Aubrey Ziegler testified that she worked for the Gretna Police Department as the child forensic interviewer at the Jefferson CAC. She conducted an interview with R.T. which was recorded.

3.   Ms. Threats testified that R.T.’s date of birth was December 6, 2007.

4.   Ms. Threats testified that R.T. also called her and told her “Mom I got eighty dollars,” and “[t]he man said it was a freebie.” She stated that he told her that it was defendant who gave it to him, and she told Detective Miles about this.

5.   R.T. explained that “jacking” meant stealing the money from defendant.

6.   R.T. testified that when he went up to defendant's car, defendant rolled down his window, and they talked. He could not recall what they talked about. He stated that he did not ask defendant to come to the house.

GRAVOIS, J.