STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JERRY GELPI (2025)

Following his convictions for first degree murder and obstruction of justice, defendant-appellant, Jerry W. Gelpi, appeals the length and consecutive nature of his sentence for obstruction of justice. For the reasons fully discussed below, we affirm Mr. Gelpi's sentence as to count one, amend the sentence as to count two and affirm as amended, but remand the case to the trial court for correction of an error patent.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On June 10, 2021, a Jefferson Parish Grand Jury returned a bill of indictment charging Mr. Gelpi, with the first-degree murder of Charles Davis, a person over 65 years of age, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30(5) (Count 1), and with obstruction of justice, in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1 (Count 2).¹ On June 15, 2021, Mr. Gelpi entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, on November 5, 2021, Mr. Gelpi changed his plea, entering a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. On April 20, 2022, following a competency hearing, Mr. Gelpi was found to be not competent to stand trial. After receiving treatment at the East Louisiana Mental Health Facility, Mr. Gelpi was found competent to stand trial on January 26, 2022, following a three-day competency hearing.

On October 2, 2024, following a three-day jury trial, Mr. Gelpi was found guilty as charged on both counts. The following day, Mr. Gelpi filed a Motion for New Trial and a Motion for Judgment Non-Obstante Verdicto (i.e., a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict), both of which were denied on October 9, 2024. Mr. Gelpi waived sentencing delays. Following the State's presentation of the testimony of several of the victim's family and friends regarding the impact Mr. Davis's murder and death had upon them, the court sentenced Mr. Gelpi to life in prison at hard labor without the benefits of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, as to Count 1. He was also sentenced to serve forty years at hard labor as to Count 2, with the sentences to run consecutively. The trial court also imposed a fine of one hundred thousand dollars on Mr. Gelpi as to Count 2.

Immediately after sentencing, defense counsel filed an oral motion for appeal and designation of the record and a general objection to the sentence. A written Motion for Appeal and Designation of the Record was filed on October 9, 2024 and was granted on October 10, 2024. No written objection to the sentence was filed on behalf of Mr. Gelpi. This appeal timely followed.

In this appeal, Mr. Gelpi assigns no error as to either of his two convictions, nor to his sentence as to Count 1 of life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. He assigns as error only his sentence for obstruction of justice. He contends that his sentence of forty years was excessive and should not have been ordered to run consecutively with his life sentence for first degree murder.

FACTS

Mr. Gelpi testified at trial in his own defense. A large portion of the facts recounted herein relative to the murder and his attempts to avoid prosecution are facts to which Mr. Gelpi testified, under oath, at his jury trial for first degree murder and obstruction of justice. The physical facts to which Mr. Gelpi testified were corroborated by the testimony of the State's witnesses, including its expert witnesses.

Background

Mr. Gelpi testified that he had a troubled adolescence. He grew up in the New Orleans, Louisiana area. He lived with his mother and stepfather, who was abusive towards him. His biological father, who suffered from schizophrenia, lived in Louisville, Kentucky, and died when Mr. Gelpi was thirteen years old.

Mr. Gelpi admitted that he used drugs and alcohol in high school and that he had a history of committing petty criminal offenses. After he graduated from high school, Mr. Gelpi began selling drugs. He joined the U.S. Navy to escape the legal consequences of this activity. After he joined the Navy, his relationship with his stepfather improved, and when Mr. Gelpi was twenty years old, his stepfather legally adopted him.

While in the Navy, Mr. Gelpi studied aviation electronics and was permanently stationed in Virginia Beach, Virginia. While stationed in Virginia Beach, his mother died and he began to experience psychological problems. He no longer wanted to be in the service and made a “half-way attempt” at committing suicide, hoping to obtain a discharge. He was discharged soon after his suicide attempt.

Thereafter, Mr. Gelpi remained in Virginia Beach for a while and obtained employment working in warehouses, driving forklifts, but due to his mental problems, was unable to hold a job for more than a few months at a time. He then became a professional retail thief. He testified that he went on a “spree,” in which he drove to different cities in Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama, eventually working his way up to Ohio, stealing items from stores and reselling them on eBay. He was arrested in Springfield, Ohio when he was attempting to shoplift from a Walgreen's and brandished a knife. After that incident, Mr. Gelpi spent approximately two years in Louisville, Kentucky.

In 2017, Mr. Gelpi moved back to New Orleans where he first stayed at a homeless shelter for veterans. There, he was allowed unlimited access to a computer. While using the computer at the shelter, Mr. Gelpi came across a YouTube channel called “QuartzCrystal” that he claims changed his life.

According to Mr. Gelpi, QuartzCrystal subscribes to the theory that humans are living in a matrix containing “Source Players” and demons and/or parasites who feed off the energy of Source Players. There is also a “demiurge” in the matrix that exists in a higher dimension than Source Players, demons, and parasites, but controls the lower dimension in which they exist. Mr. Gelpi claimed to be a “Source Player.” In fact, he stated that he is the most powerful Source Player on the planet and has the ability to affect world events. He also referred to himself as the “sun of God.”² He stated that the objective of the “game,” QuartzCrystal, is to ascend from the matrix. The job of the demiurge is to keep Source Players in the lower dimension and to employ demons and parasites to put Source Players, such as himself, through a series of trials and tribulations. In order to resist the demiurge and continue on his journey to ascend from the matrix, a Source Player must increase his “vibrations,” which can be accomplished through eating a vegan diet and abstaining from sexual activity.

Mr. Gelpi testified that, in 2019, he became subject to demonic attacks from people around him who were reading his thoughts and “playing mind games” with him. He took actions to raise his “vibrations,” which caused the parasites to be unable to feed off him and, in turn, caused the coronavirus. During this time, he realized that his mission was to kill the parasites either through the coronavirus or by physically killing them.

Also in 2019, Mr. Gelpi moved into Apartment B, 425 Highway Drive, located off of Jefferson Highway, in Harahan, Louisiana. Mr. Gelpi testified that when he moved into his apartment, he had a prophecy that something bad was going to happen within the apartment complex in two years.

Apartment B, Mr. Gelpi's apartment, was located directly beneath Apartment E, the apartment of the victim, Charles Davis. The lay-out of the apartments was identical.

Linda Marie Moore, the mother of Mr. Davis's daughter and Mr. Davis's close friend, testified that Mr. Davis had lived in the same apartment for some time with Rhonda Degruy, his long-time, live-in girlfriend. Mr. Davis worked nearby at Graham Packing, a company that made motor oil containers. According to Ms. Moore, Mr. Davis loved his job and was a workaholic.

Mr. Gelpi stated that Mr. Davis and his girlfriend were demons who were reading and invading his thoughts. According to Mr. Gelpi, Mr. Davis “followed [him] around the apartment.” He claimed that when he went into a room in his apartment, Mr. Davis went into the same room in his own apartment. Mr. Gelpi testified that he suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder and when he would start one of his “routines,” Mr. Davis would do the same in the apartment above him. Mr. Gelpi stated that Mr. Davis was the head demon and “psychologically tortur[ed] [him] for two years” until he couldn't take it anymore.

According to Mr. Gelpi, Mr. Davis and his girlfriend then left their apartment for about six months during 2020. Mr. Gelpi stated that he knew that they had COVID. He was also aware that Mr. Davis's girlfriend had died from COVID.

Mr. Davis's daughter, Shynell Mays, and her mother, Ms. Moore, both testified at trial that both Ms. Degruy and Mr. Davis were hospitalized when they contracted COVID. Ms. Degruy died from the virus and Mr. Davis himself nearly died from it. He survived, and after a lengthy hospitalization, was released into a long-term acute care facility at Ochsner Hospital, where he had to learn to walk again. During his illness, Mr. Davis lost a great deal of weight, became very weak, and required oxygen and inhalers to breathe. Because his apartment was on the second floor, he could not physically return to it when he was released from the acute care facility. At that point, Ms. Moore took him in, cared for him, and took him to doctors’ and physical therapy appointments. Mr. Davis's goal was to become strong and well enough to return to his apartment and to his job.

Ms. Moore testified that, around Christmas 2020, Mr. Davis began going back and spending weekends in his apartment. He would return to Ms. Moore's house on Tuesdays and Wednesdays so that she could take him to his physical therapy appointments.

The Murder

In 2019, Mr. Gelpi decided that he had to start killing demons. To that end, he began hoarding weapons, including knives and baseball bats. By December 2020, Mr. Gelpi had decided that the time to kill had arrived.

Mr. Gelpi testified that in early 2021, he decided to kill Mr. Davis. The murder occurred late on the evening of February 8, 2021 and into the early morning hours of February 9, 2021. Mr. Gelpi had intended to kill Mr. Davis two weeks earlier, but could not bring himself to knock on the door. Mr. Gelpi stated that his plan was “just intense and extreme and just – I had never killed anyone before, and I just – I just couldn't go through with it.”

A couple of weeks later, Mr. Gelpi wanted to do a “recon mission” to see inside Mr. Davis's apartment and to talk to him and see what kind of person he really was. On the evening of February 8, 2021, Mr. Gelpi went up to Mr. Davis's apartment, knocked on the door and, when Mr. Davis answered, falsely told him that his bathtub was leaking into Mr. Gelpi's apartment downstairs. Mr. Gelpi believed this ruse would be successful because Mr. Davis's bathtub had actually leaked into Mr. Gelpi's apartment on a prior occasion. Mr. Gelpi asked to come in and show Mr. Davis where the alleged leak was. The two men went into Mr. Davis's bathroom to check out the situation. According to Mr. Gelpi, he pointed Mr. Davis to the bathtub and the spot that he claimed was leaking. He stated that they had been talking and Mr. Davis was being very nice to him. Because of that, he decided not to kill Mr. Davis and described feeling “relieved.” Mr. Gelpi was about to leave when he received a “sign from the demiurge.”

Mr. Davis stood in the tub and then sat on the edge of the bathtub with his back to Mr. Gelpi and asked where the leak was. Mr. Davis's actions were similar to a scene that Mr. Gelpi had ideated when thinking about how he would murder Mr. Davis. Mr. Gelpi had imagined that he would come up behind Mr. Davis, put him in a sleeper hold, and cut his throat so that he would bleed out. When Mr. Davis sat on the tub with his back to Mr. Gelpi, the demiurge was creating the opportunity for Mr. Gelpi to enact the scenario as he had imagined it. Mr. Gelpi took that as a sign to proceed with the killing, even though he did not immediately do so.

Mr. Davis stood up from the tub and, at that moment, Mr. Gelpi saw a demon – Mr. Davis – who was reading his thoughts. As soon as Mr. Gelpi saw the demon, “[i]t was, like, X marks the spot.” At that point, Mr. Gelpi got his knife out, opened it, and told Mr. Davis to look again for the leak. When Mr. Davis turned to do so, Mr. Gelpi stabbed Mr. Davis in the neck “and blood came gushing out and there was no turning back at that point. I couldn't turn back.” Mr. Davis backed up against the sink and knocked it off the wall. The two then struggled while Mr. Gelpi continued to stab Mr. Davis.

According to Mr. Gelpi, Mr. Davis put up more of a fight than he had anticipated. He also stated that he and Mr. Davis were looking into one another's eyes and he saw in Mr. Davis's eyes that he – Mr. Gelpi – had been right all along about Mr. Davis being a demon and psychologically torturing him. Mr. Davis had “dropped the whole human nice guy routine.” Mr. Gelpi stabbed Mr. Davis in the eye and continued stabbing him in the side of his neck, but did not touch his windpipe because he wanted Mr. Davis to be able to breathe. Near the end of the altercation, Mr. Davis was kneeling in the tub and Mr. Gelpi was holding up Mr. Davis's head, with the knife poised to slit his throat, but stopped. According to Mr. Gelpi, “I just stopped. He was just breathing. And then at that point, I felt kind of bad.” Mr. Gelpi testified that he did not feel bad because what he had done was wrong, but because Mr. Davis was “helpless” and there was a “human element to – I mean you're dealing with a demon that was [possessing] a human body.” The experience of killing Mr. Davis was not what he expected; he had believed the encounter would be something like the movie, the “Exorcist.” Mr. Gelpi apologized to Mr. Davis and said, “I'm sorry it had to be this way.” He felt Mr. Davis’ muscles give way and stated that Mr. Davis fell over into the tub and hit his head on the bottom of the tub. Mr. Gelpi then left the bathroom to “take a break.”

Mr. Gelpi testified that he had blood all over his clothing, hands, and arms. He felt dirty and just wanted to clean up so he went to the kitchen sink, washed his hands and arms, and washed the knife. He then went back into the bathroom and found that Mr. Davis was still breathing very faintly. He did not want to leave Mr. Davis that way; he wanted to do him a favor and let him bleed out so he cut the arteries on one side of Mr. Davis's neck. He reiterated that he did not touch Mr. Davis's windpipe because he thought there might be “karma attached to it in some kind of way.” Mr. Gelpi left the bathroom for five to ten minutes and came back to find Mr. Davis dead. He then cut Mr. Davis's windpipe to make absolutely sure he was dead.³

The Aftermath

Afterwards, Mr. Gelpi cleaned the knife, cleaned up his fingerprints from the bathroom, took a rag he had used in the bathroom into Mr. Davis's kitchen, and cleaned himself up. He explained that even though he did not believe that he could be arrested for anything, he took simple precautions just in case. He did not go so far as to try to bleach away the blood because he lives in a “fictional reality.” He explained, “This is a dream. If you kill someone in a dream, would you be worried about DNA and all that? No, you would just do it.” Mr. Gelpi elaborated that the demiurge “uses the police and the court system to attack me,” but that he did not think that the demiurge could put him in jail for any length of time because he – Mr. Gelpi – was a powerful Source Player.

Mr. Gelpi testified that after he finished cleaning up, he went into the living room and sat down and watched television. He wasn't really paying attention to what was on the television; he had never killed anyone before and he just wanted to sit there and “[take] in the moment.” After about half an hour, he put items that he thought he may have touched into a bag and left, taking the bag with him. He used a rag to open and close the door because he did not want to leave fingerprints. He stood on the balcony for about five minutes and reassured himself that he lived in a fictional reality and was untouchable. This belief was confirmed by the fact that, although there could have been – and should have been – a number of people outside the apartments, no one was, which was “ridiculous.” “Like, how could anyone not have heard anything? I mean, the sink got knocked off the wall and everything.”

Mr. Gelpi then proceeded to his apartment. At some point, he went into his bathroom and found that water was leaking into it from above. He feared that Mr. Davis may have come back to life and turned on the water. He then went back upstairs just to make sure that Mr. Davis was still dead. Finding that Mr. Davis had not come back to life, he went back to his apartment, stripped off his bloody clothes and shoes, and put them in a plastic bag. He then showered, ate dinner, and played video games. The next day, he woke up at around 10:00 a.m., took the plastic bag containing his clothes and shoes, walked to a convenience store, and threw the bag in a dumpster behind the store.

When Mr. Gelpi returned to his apartment, he saw Ms. Mays's car outside. He went inside his apartment, got a “school bag” and put some clothes and the murder knife in it. As he was preparing to leave, he heard Mr. Davis's daughter in the apartment above him calling 9-1-1. He then got on his bike and left the apartments. As he was riding away, he saw police cars headed towards the apartment. Mr. Gelpi headed for the levee and when he got there, threw the murder knife into the river. Mr. Gelpi was pretty sure that he could not be arrested, but he did have some doubt. He believed the longest he could be jailed was a couple of months even if he were caught “red-handed.”⁴

Discovery of Mr. Davis's Body and the Subsequent Investigation

Ms. Mays testified that on the morning of February 9, 2021, she was contacted by her mother, Ms. Moore, and asked to drive by Mr. Davis's apartment to check on him. Ms. Moore reported that Mr. Davis was supposed to take a bus to her house so that she could take him to a physical therapy appointment, but that he had not showed up.

Ms. Mays went to Mr. Davis's apartment and went inside. She had a key, which she inserted, but the door was not locked. Once inside, she did not see anything amiss. The television was on and a cot in the living room had not been slept on. Lights were on in the living room and bedroom. She called out for her father, but he did not answer. She heard the water running in the bathroom and assumed he was taking a shower. She continued to call him and when he did not answer, she moved through the apartment towards the bedroom and bathroom. In the bedroom, she noticed blood and water on the floor. She proceeded into the bathroom and noticed the sink was off the wall and there was blood down the walls. She looked over and saw Mr. Davis in the bathtub. She stated that it did not look like Mr. Davis, but she knew it was him. She then “freaked out a little” and called Ms. Moore.

Ms. Mays next called 9-1-1. The 9-1-1 records reflected that the 9-1-1 call came in at about 11:25 a.m. The 9-1-1 operator asked Ms. Mays whether Mr. Davis had a pulse and she realized that she had not checked. She went back into the bathroom and checked Mr. Davis for a pulse, but he had none. EMS and patrol officers arrived about ten minutes after the call.

When waiting outside for EMS and the police to arrive, Ms. Mays noticed Mr. Gelpi standing outside the apartment building with other residents. He stood there for a little bit and walked away and she did not see him again that day.

The investigating detectives saw no signs of forced entry at Mr. Davis's apartment. There were no signs of a struggle in the living room, hallway, or bedroom. Bloody shoe prints, male size 10 (later identified as Mr. Gelpi's shoe size), were observed in the hallway, bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen areas of the apartment. Spots of blood were observed outside on the concrete walkway leading to the apartment. Blood DNA was collected from the bathroom and kitchen, which was subsequently identified to be that of Mr. Davis and Mr. Gelpi.

All of the residents who were present at the apartment complex on February 9, 2021, the day Mr. Davis's body was discovered, were questioned by detectives. Only two residents, one of whom was Mr. Gelpi, were not present and able to be questioned on February 9, 2021. The residents who were questioned on that date described Mr. Davis as a nice, quiet man, who never bothered anyone and was often seen biking, walking to the grocery store, and sitting outside his apartment. His friends and family members described him as a good person and a private person who did not drink or play loud music. They described him as someone who got along with everybody.

Mr. Gelpi was questioned at his apartment on February 10, 2021. He stated that when the detectives came to question him on that day, he realized that they were demons. One was the same demon that he had killed in Mr. Davis's apartment; the demon had just moved from Mr. Davis's body into the detective's body. He testified that he had no problem lying to the detectives and admitted lying to them during that first interview.

In his initial interview, Mr. Gelpi informed detectives that he had not seen or heard anything on the night of the murder. He also told the detectives that he had never been inside Mr. Davis's apartment. Contrary to the descriptions provided by all of the other tenants at the apartment complex, he described “Charles” as someone who “drank a lot and partied.” Mr. Gelpi informed the detectives at that time that he had seen an unknown white male, with a bald head and tattoos, on Mr. Davis's balcony drinking with Mr. Davis two weeks prior. He suggested that the detectives look into this person. He claimed not to have heard any commotion on the night of the homicide or to have any knowledge of the homicide.

At that time, Mr. Gelpi did not describe Mr. Davis as a “demon,” and made no mention of Mr. Davis's reading or invading his thoughts. When speaking of Mr. Davis, he referred to him as “Mr. Charlie,” “Mr. Charles,” or “Mr. Davis.” He did not mention being a “Source Player,” nor did he claim that he was above the law, as he claimed later.

Because Mr. Gelpi's description of Mr. Davis was so different than those provided by the other residents, the detectives’ suspicions were aroused. As a result, they decided to investigate his background. Their investigation revealed that Mr. Gelpi had been involved in two altercations involving the brandishing of knives – one when attempting to rob a Walgreen's in Springfield, Ohio, and one locally, at the Walmart in Kenner.

After receiving and reviewing video from surveillance cameras in the area, detectives went back to the apartment complex on February 18, 2021 to interview residents so that they could identify the comings and goings depicted in the video. At that time, they conducted a second interview of Mr. Gelpi. Mr. Gelpi admitted at trial that, on this occasion, he again lied to the detectives. Mr. Gelpi continued to falsely maintain that he had never been inside Mr. Davis's apartment. When discussing Mr. Davis, Mr. Gelpi used his proper human name and did not refer to him as a demon.

The coroner determined that Mr. Davis's time of death was between 11:00 p.m. on February 8, 2021 and 2:00 a.m. on February 9, 2021. Mr. Davis had been stabbed at least fifteen times.⁵ He had defensive wounds on his hands, indicating that he fought back.

On February 19, 2021, the DNA testing results came back. They showed that Mr. Gelpi's DNA was found on the bathroom sink, along with Mr. Davis's, and that Mr. Gelpi's DNA was found underneath Mr. Davis's fingernails. Additionally, since Mr. Davis never left the bathroom, his blood, which was fresh and found in the kitchen, was determined to have been transferred there by the assailant.

After receiving the DNA results, detectives obtained an arrest warrant for Mr. Gelpi and a search warrant for his residence. At the time of Mr. Gelpi's arrest, he was found to be in possession of a knife.⁶ According to Detective Steven Keller, Mr. Gelpi did not appear to be surprised at being arrested. Mr. Gelpi did not mention anything about demons at the time of his arrest.

At the Investigations Bureau following his arrest, Mr. Gelpi was read his Miranda rights, which he stated he understood and waived. Detectives then interviewed Mr. Gelpi in a video-recorded interview. Mr. Gelpi admitted at trial that he lied to detectives when they interviewed him at the Investigations Bureau. He stated that he thought it was a “joke” and not “anything to take seriously.”

In that interview, Mr. Gelpi claimed for the first time that he had been in Mr. Davis's apartment about four months prior to the murder and had been in the living room and the bathroom on that occasion. He stated that he felt, and would feel, comfortable being with Mr. Davis in the apartment. He further stated that, although Mr. Davis was noisy, there was insulation between the apartments and that, on the night of the murder, he had not heard anything. Mr. Gelpi also suggested that a “ninja” may have broken into Mr. Davis's apartment and killed him.

Upon further questioning, Mr. Gelpi informed the detectives that he had been in Mr. Davis's apartment on one other occasion about a year and a half before the murder. He stated that he could not figure out why anyone would want to kill Mr. Davis and described the situation as “crazy.” Mr. Gelpi also suggested that the detectives look into “Charlie,” who he described to them as being “an old drunk” and “crazy.”

Upon being informed that DNA evidence had been recovered from Mr. Davis's apartment and analyzed, Mr. Gelpi stated that in addition to having been in Mr. Davis's living room and bathroom, he may have also gone into the kitchen on one or both occasions that he went inside Mr. Davis's apartment; however, he continued to deny being there the night of the murder and to having had anything to do with the murder. Upon continued questioning, Mr. Gelpi admitted that he had been in Mr. Davis's apartment on the night of the murder watching the movie, “Jupiter Ascending,” with Mr. Davis, but he continued to deny having anything to do with Mr. Davis's murder.⁷

When questioned about prior arrests, Mr. Gelpi informed the officers that he had only ever been arrested for traffic incidents and minor offenses. When confronted with the knife brandishing incident in Kenner, Louisiana, he denied pulling a knife on the alleged victim, even though he admitted that the victim accused him of pulling a knife.⁸ Mr. Gelpi also falsely stated that the charges against him were dropped, when the charges were pending both at the time of the interview and at the time of trial.

At that point, Mr. Gelpi began to think “man, I guess they can get me.” He became afraid and requested an attorney. Up to that point, Mr. Gelpi was convinced that the authorities could not do anything to him and that they were going to let him go. He stated that, had he believed he was in an objective reality, he would never have spoken to the detectives.

Once Mr. Gelpi requested an attorney, questioning ceased, although the videotape continued to run while detectives obtained search warrants for Mr. Gelpi's DNA and photographs.⁹ While detectives were out of the interview room after Mr. Gelpi requested counsel, Mr. Gelpi fell asleep for approximately twenty minutes. When he woke up, he was mumbling to himself about his “vibrations,” needing water, “evil” entities, reality, and being in a “dream”; he did not, however, refer to Mr. Davis as “demon,” nor did he mention being forced by some supernatural force to kill Mr. Davis. Mr. Gelpi never expressed any regret or remorse for killing Mr. Davis.

Three doctors who had evaluated Mr. Gelpi testified at trial as to Mr. Gelpi's mental competency at the time of the crime. Dr. Sarah Deland, a forensic psychologist, opined that Mr. Gelpi suffers from serious mental illness and that, at the time of the offense, he was having “active paranoid delusions that caused him to be unable at the time to distinguish right from wrong.” Dr. Christopher Fritzche, a forensic psychiatrist, testified that, although Mr. Gelpi may suffer from mental illness, he believed that Mr. Gelpi was malingering and was prone to lie to get what he wanted. Dr. Dian Manguno-Mire, also a forensic psychiatrist, opined that Mr. Gelpi has multiple mental illnesses, but none that “prevented him from being able to know right from wrong with reference to the murder of Mr. Charles Davis.” She also opined that Mr. Gelpi was malingering.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Gelpi contends that the trial court erred in imposing his sentences consecutively without providing reasons. He also asserts that the imposition of the maximum sentence of forty years for obstruction of justice, a violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1, is unsupported by the record because: (1) he is a first offender, (2) the offense (according to him) was an “extremely minor infraction,” (3) the offense was connected to the top count of first degree murder, (4) the trial court should have considered evidence of his mental health, (5) the trial court failed to comply with La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, and (6) the trial court failed to order a presentence investigation report (“PSI Report”). Mr. Gelpi also claims that the consecutive nature of the sentences renders his sentence excessive under the circumstances.

The State contends that the trial court provided reasons for the sentences imposed and that the record supports both the imposition of the maximum sentence for obstruction of justice and the consecutive nature of the sentences. The State asserts that the nature of the crime and of the defendant, the defendant's criminal history, and the sentence imposed for similar crimes supports the imposition of the maximum sentence.

As stated above, we observe as an initial matter that after sentencing, Mr. Gelpi's counsel first moved for an appeal, stating that he had a written motion to present to the court. Thereafter, counsel objected orally to the sentence generally, but did not state on the record any basis for the request for reconsideration, nor did Mr. Gelpi or his counsel file a written motion to reconsider sentence. Mr. Gelpi specifically did not object to the consecutive nature of the sentences, the alleged failure of the trial court to comply with La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, or the lack of a PSI Report. La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(B) requires that a motion to reconsider sentence “set forth the specific grounds on which the motion is based.” This was not done in this case. La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(E) provides:

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 from urging any ground not raised in the motion on appeal or review.

Under the circumstances presented, Mr. Gelpi is limited by Article 881.1(E) to a bare review of the sentence for constitutional excessiveness. State v. Austin, 12-629 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/13/13), 113 So.3d 306, 314, writ denied, 13-673 (La. 10/25/13), 124 So.3d 1092, and cases cited therein. In this case, Mr. Gelpi's sentence for obstruction of justice was within the statutory limit provided in La. R.S. 14:130.1(B)(1), which stated at the time he committed the offense that:

B. Whoever commits the crime of obstruction of justice shall be subject to the following penalties:

(1) When the obstruction of justice involves a criminal proceeding in which a sentence of death or life imprisonment may be imposed, the offender shall be fined not more than one hundred thousand dollars, imprisoned for not more than forty years at hard labor, or both.

Nevertheless, even where a sentence is within the statutory limits, it can be reviewed for constitutional excessiveness. See State v. Brown, 94-1290 (La. 1/17/95), 648 So.2d 872, 877. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 20 of the Louisiana Constitution govern whether a sentence is constitutionally excessive and therefore invalid. 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. Nguyen, 06–969 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/24/07), 958 So.2d 61, 64, writ denied, 07–1161 (La. 12/7/07), 969 So.2d 628. Furthermore, 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” or makes no reasonable contribution to acceptable penal goals. State v. Lawson, 04–334 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/28/04), 885 So.2d 618, 622. See also State v. Guzman, 99–1528 (La. 5/16/00), 769 So.2d 1158, 1167.

A trial judge has broad discretion in imposing a sentence within statutory limits, and a reviewing court may not set aside a sentence absent a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Hill, 12–495 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/18/12), 106 So.3d 1209, 1212-13; State v. Williams, 03–3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So.2d 7, 16. On appeal, the issue is not whether a different sentence might have been more appropriate, but rather, whether the trial court abused its discretion. Williams, 893 So.2d at 16-17. See also State v. Dorsey, 07–67 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/29/07), 960 So.2d 1127, 1130. Furthermore, if the record supports the sentence imposed, the appellate court shall not set it aside for excessiveness. State v. Cornejo–Garcia, 11–619 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/24/12), 90 So.3d 458, 465. 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.” State v. Alvarez, 08–558 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/31/10), 47 So.3d 1018, 1022; State v. Pearson, 07–332 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/07), 975 So.2d 646, 656.

Typically, maximum sentences are reserved for cases involving the most serious violations of the offense charged and the worst type of offender. State v. Falkins, 04–250 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/27/04), 880 So.2d 903, 911, writ denied, 04–2220 (La. 1/14/05), 889 So.2d 266, and writ denied sub nom. State ex rel. Simms v. State, 04–2171 (La. 5/20/05), 902 So.2d 1045; State v. Ross, 13–924 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/14), 142 So.3d 327, 333. 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 in sentencing. Ross, 142 So.3d at 333.

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, La. C.Cr.P. art. 883 provides that “[t]he terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively․” (Emphasis added). Thus, although Louisiana law favors concurrent sentences for crimes committed as part of a single transaction, the trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender's past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community. Cornejo–Garcia, 90 So.3d at 465. See also State v. Thomas, 98–1144 (La.10/9/98), 719 So.2d 49 (per curiam). If the record provides an adequate factual basis to support consecutive sentences, the sentence will not be reversed or the matter remanded even if the trial court fails to adequately articulate its reasoning for imposing consecutive sentences. Cornejo-Garcia, 90 So.3d at 465.

In this case, the trial court heard all of the evidence presented at trial, including Mr. Gelpi's own testimony as to the planning of the murder, the brutal nature of the murder, his extensive attempts to avoid arrest, and his lack of remorse. The trial judge also heard and considered victim impact testimony and statements. In imposing sentence, the trial judge stated:

Mr. Gelpi, I presided over this case. I heard all the witnesses. I heard the facts in this case. I heard your disgusting testimony from the witness stand. I think this family's got your number right on point.

I don't even think what you did was human. I think you were the demon that day. I think you showed no mercy to this man. And in my opinion I think the motive․after hearing the evidence and listening to the witnesses, you just wanted to kill somebody. I think you're fascinated with death, you're fascinated with evil, you're fascinated with those knives of yours, and I just think you thought it was time that you wanted to see what it was like to have to kill somebody and stab somebody to death, if you haven't already done it before. I don't even know. I haven't made up my mind, I don't know, and what I saw that day during the trial, I'm not sure this was your first time to be honest with you.

Also, you showed no compassion at all, I mean, your whole philosophy, your whole outlook on life. You accused this man of being the demon. You were the only demon that day. The family's got that right. For the rest of your life, when you wake up in [the] morning, you should thank that family, that beautiful family, that close, beautiful family, who spared your life. They spared your life because had they gone [for] the death penalty, I'm certain the jury would have found you guilty and you wouldn't be serving a life sentence. So, you ought to thank that family. I don't know where they found the courage, or the kindness, or the compassion to do that, but I don't think you deserve it. I really don't. You took a good man that day. You took a real good man. Everybody liked him. He was – he was just a good guy. And you went up there and you brutally murdered him.

So, Mr. Gelpi, I'm sentencing you, on the first degree murder charge, to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. And as for the ․ Obstruction of justice, which is zero to forty; is that correct?

***

On Count 2, I'm sentencing you to forty years at hard labor on the obstruction of justice and a fine of one hundred thousand dollars. And I'm running those sentences consecutive with each other.

Considering the evidence of the extensive efforts that Mr. Gelpi took to clean up the crime scene, dispose of evidence, avoid detection, his repeated lies to detectives, and his manipulative tendencies of fabrication and malingering to get what he wants, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion or committed manifest error in sentencing Mr. Gelpi to forty years for obstruction of justice.

Mr. Gelpi is precluded from raising the consecutive nature of his sentences on appeal for failure to raise it at trial. Nevertheless, the record supports the trial court's decision to run the sentences consecutively considering the brutal nature of the crime, Mr. Gelpi's efforts to avoid responsibility, his lack of remorse, and his continued claims of justification. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in running his sentences consecutively.

Furthermore, Louisiana jurisprudence supports the trial judge's decision to impose consecutive sentences. See State v. Bibb, 626 So.2d 913 (La. App. 5 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93–3127 (La. 9/16/94), 642 So.2d 188 (two consecutive life sentences for two counts of first degree murder not constitutionally excessive for defendant that murdered his five-year-old son and his two-year-old daughter); State v. Smith, 44,998 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/31/10), 34 So.3d 386, writ denied, 10–0980 (La. 12/10/10), 51 So.3d 722 (consecutive life sentences for two counts of second degree murder not constitutionally excessive for recidivist defendant convicted of ambush murder of two police officers); and State v. Petty, 12-278 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/30/12), 103 So.3d 616, 626 (consecutive terms of forty years at hard labor for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and life imprisonment at hard labor for second degree murder arising out of same transaction, scheme, or plan, not excessive). Moreover, even if the trial judge erred in imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences, the error was harmless in light of the fact that Mr. Gelpi was sentenced, on the first-degree murder conviction, to the mandatory term of life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. See State v. Puckett, 02–997 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/28/03), 839 So.2d 226, 234, writ denied, 03–891 (La. 12/12/03), 860 So.2d 1148.

Finally, Mr. Gelpi did not object in the trial court on any Article 894.1 grounds and cannot raise such grounds for the first time on appeal. Nor did the trial court err in failing to order a PSI Report, as a defendant has no absolute right to a PSI Report. See State v. Bell, 377 So.2d 275 (La. 1979). Mr. Gelpi did not object to the lack of a PSI Report at the sentencing hearing. Further, the trial court heard extensive testimony at trial relative to Mr. Gelpi's personal history and would not have benefitted from having a PSI Report.

ERRORS PATENT

The record was reviewed for errors patent according to La. C.Cr.P. art. 920 and we have identified the following issues.

1. Imposition of Restriction of Benefits as to Count 2.

The sentencing transcript reflects the sentence on Count 2 was imposed without restricting benefits of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The trial court's failure to restrict benefits in conjunction with Mr. Gelpi's sentence on Count 2 is in accord with La. R.S. 14:130.1, which does not restrict benefits on a sentence for obstruction of justice. The Minute Entry of sentencing and the Uniform Commitment Order (“UCO”), however, both contain a restriction of benefits. In such a case, the transcript prevails. See State v. Lynch, 441 So.2d 732, 734 (La. 1983). Accordingly, we remand the matter to the trial court for correction of the Minute Entry of sentencing and the UCO to remove the restriction of benefits and order that once the UCO is corrected, the Clerk of Court for the 24th Judicial District Court shall transmit the corrected UCO to the appropriate authorities in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 892(B)(2) and to the Department of Corrections’ legal department. See State v. McGinnis, 23-472 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/31/24), 392 So.3d 963, 978.

2. Failure to Conduct Hearing Before Imposing Fine as to Count 2.

Additionally, the trial court imposed a fine of one hundred thousand dollars on Count 2, for obstruction of justice. While it was permissible for the trial court to impose a fine of up to one hundred thousand dollars as to that count, La. C.Cr.P. art. 875.1 requires that there be a hearing to determine whether payment of any fine, fee, cost, restitution, or monetary obligation would cause substantial hardship to the defendant or his dependents. The record does not indicate that such a hearing was conducted by the trial court prior to the imposition of the fine or that Mr. Gelpi waived this judicial determination. Accordingly, we vacate the fine of one hundred thousand dollars imposed on Mr. Gelpi in conjunction with Count 2. 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), 406 So.3d 222. We decline, however, to remand the matter for a financial feasibility hearing, as such a hearing would be futile, given that Mr. Gelpi is serving a life sentence and will have no ability to pay any fine. See State v. Lopez, 23-335 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/21/24), 398 So.3d 167, 185, writ denied, 24-1187 (La. 1/14/25), 398 So.3d 650.

DECREE

Accordingly, for all of the reasons stated above, Mr. Gelpi's sentence as to Count 1 is affirmed. Mr. Gelpi's sentence as to Count 2 is amended to vacate the fine imposed and otherwise is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court for correction of the Minute Entry of sentencing and the Uniform Commitment Order to remove the restriction of benefits as to Count 2. Thereafter, the Clerk of Court for the 24th Judicial District Court shall transmit the corrected UCO to the appropriate authorities in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 892(B)(2) and to the Department of Corrections’ legal department.

SENTENCES AFFIRMED, FINE VACATED, REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF UCO AND MINUTE ENTRY OF SENTENCING

FIFTH CIRCUIT

101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)

POST OFFICE BOX 489

GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054

www.fifthcircuit.org

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CHIEF JUDGE

FREDERICKA H. WICKER

JUDE G. GRAVOIS

MARC E. JOHNSON

STEPHEN J. WINDHORST

JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.

SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL

TIMOTHY S. MARCEL

JUDGES

CURTIS B. PURSELL CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK

LINDA M. TRAN FIRST DEPUTY CLERK

MELISSA C. LEDET DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF

(504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY DECEMBER 10, 2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

25-KA-58

CURTIS B. PURSELL CLERK OF COURT

E-NOTIFIED

24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)

HONORABLE FRANK A. BRINDISI (DISTRICT JUDGE)

CHRISTOPHER A. ABERLE (APPELLANT)

MONIQUE D. NOLAN (APPELLEE)

THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE)

MAILED

HONORABLE PAUL D. CONNICK, JR.

(APPELLEE)

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

LINDSAY L. TRUHE (APPELLEE)

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

THOMAS S. BLOCK (APPELLEE)

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS

TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

200 DERBIGNY STREET

GRETNA, LA 70053

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mr. Davis was sixty-eight years old at the time of the murder.

2.   Mr. Gelpi testified that he does not believe that he is Jesus, but that he is the offspring of the source, i.e., the sun, and the manifestation of the sun on earth. He further claims that as a result of his extended incarceration, the world is now headed towards the apocalypse because “when you put the sun of God in jail, there are consequences.”

3.   Dr. Timothy Scanlan testified at trial as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and blood pattern splatter. Dr. Scanlan walked the jury through how the crime was committed from a scientific standpoint. His explanation was consistent with Mr. Gelpi's testimony.

4.   Mr. Gelpi explained that he believed he had a “license to steal” and could not be caught, which was revealed to him because of the things he had gone through in Ohio when he was caught stealing and brandished a knife. According to Mr. Gelpi, the demiurge would not allow him to be caught. As further evidence that he lived in a fictional reality, Mr. Gelpi stated that he could go into Walmart and fill a duffel bag with stolen merchandise and walk right out past the loss prevention officer and in full view of the cameras. He did take small precautions when he was stealing, however, such as avoiding cameras where possible, stuffing his duffel bag only when he was in an aisle with no cameras, and then making his escape from that aisle. Mr. Gelpi stated that it was “obvious” what he was doing (stealing), so he did not believe that the police were permitted to arrest him for anything. He believed that his supernatural immunity from prosecution for stealing would also protect him from prosecution for Mr. Davis's murder.

5.   The coroner testified that there may have been more stab wounds that were combined to the extent that they could not be separated and identified.

6.   Among the items recovered in the search of Mr. Gelpi's apartment were several knives and a laptop computer. Detectives Dustin Ducote and Robert Mills of the Digital Forensics Unit both testified as experts in digital forensic analysis. They testified that after he was first questioned by detectives on February 10, 2021, Mr. Gelpi ran numerous search requests related to Mr. Davis's murder. One such search was “Jefferson Parish murder, February 9, stabbed, neck,” even though when they questioned him, the detectives had not informed Mr. Gelpi of the manner of Mr. Davis's death. This search was conducted using Mr. Gelpi's private cell phone as a Wi-Fi hotspot. Mr. Gelpi normally conducted all of his searches on a public network at the library. They also testified that, as far back as December, 2020, Mr. Gelpi had been researching, stun guns, “femoral artery,” knife fighting, how to stab a person in different areas of the body, how to purchase a gun on the black market, and gun silencers.

7.   The movie, “Jupiter Ascending” was found in Mr. Gelpi's apartment.

8.   Cell phone video was played at trial of Mr. Gelpi brandishing a knife at individuals at the Walmart in Kenner. Mousa Aljamain and George Gindy, two individuals who were victims in the knife brandishing incident, testified at trial that Mr. Gelpi pulled a knife on them at the Walmart in Kenner. Mark Nagy, the victim in the knife brandishing incident that occurred at the Walgreen's in Ohio, also testified that Mr. Gelpi had pulled a knife on him while attempting to rob the Walgreens.

9.   When Det. Keller tried to take Mr. Gelpi's DNA, he refused, but the swab was ultimately taken.

FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER JUDGE