Summary
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit affirmed Ralph Cheramie, Jr.'s convictions for molestation of a juvenile, indecent behavior with a juvenile, and sexual battery, as well as his concurrent sentences. The court rejected his challenges to the excessiveness of his sentences and addressed his pro se claims concerning arrest evidence, vindictive prosecution, subject-matter jurisdiction, and other-crimes evidence. The court held that some pro se assignments were abandoned for inadequate briefing and that the Seventeenth Judicial District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion or imposed constitutionally excessive sentences for molestation of a juvenile, indecent behavior with a juvenile, and sexual battery.
- Whether the defendant's unbriefed pro se claims concerning the sufficiency of the arrest affidavit and vindictive prosecution should be considered on appeal.
- Whether the Seventeenth Judicial District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the felony charges.
- Whether the defendant's unbriefed evidentiary challenge to testimony by another alleged victim was preserved for appellate review.
Holdings
- The concurrent sentences were not constitutionally excessive because they were not grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offenses and were not a purposeless or needless infliction of pain and suffering.
- The court declined to address the pro se claims concerning the sufficiency of the arrest affidavit and vindictive prosecution because the defendant failed to brief or develop them.
- The Seventeenth Judicial District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction because Louisiana district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over felony cases.
- The court deemed the evidentiary challenge abandoned because it was not properly briefed.
Key quotations
“A sentence is considered constitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense or is nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering.” (p. 4)
“On appellate review of a sentence, the relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.” (p. 4)
“Because the trial of felony cases is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the criminal district court, the Seventeenth Judicial District Court had subject matter jurisdiction in this matter.” (p. 9)
Factual background
Cheramie was an art teacher at Golden Meadow Middle School in Lafourche Parish. The evidence concerning the charged offenses showed that he engaged in sexual misconduct with K.D. when she was twelve years old and under his supervision, including touching her, kissing her neck and ear, exposing himself, and asking her to remove her clothing. The sentencing record also reflected evidence of sexual misconduct involving other students, the victim's continuing psychological harm, Cheramie's lack of remorse, and his exploitation of his position as an educator.
Procedural history
Cheramie was charged by bill of information with molestation of a juvenile under thirteen, indecent behavior with a juvenile under thirteen, and sexual battery of a victim under thirteen. A jury found him guilty as charged on all three counts. The Seventeenth Judicial District Court for Lafourche Parish imposed concurrent hard-labor sentences of forty years, ten years, and forty years, respectively, with portions of the sentences without benefits. The trial court denied post-trial motions and the motion to reconsider sentence. On appeal, Cheramie raised counseled sentencing claims and several pro se claims; the First Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.