State of Louisiana v. Jerron Bailey, Sr.

Bailey · Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit · December 17, 2025 · No. 56,691-KA

Summary

The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, affirmed Jerron Bailey, Sr.'s four-year hard-labor sentence for aggravated flight from an officer. The court held that the trial court sufficiently particularized the sentence by referencing Bailey's sentencing memorandum and did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence near the upper end of the statutory range. Judge Stephens dissented in part, concluding that the maximum appropriate sentence was 18 months.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Cox, J.; Stephens, J.; Marcotte, J.
Jurisdiction
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Decision date
December 17, 2025
Docket number
56,691-KA
Procedural posture
Bailey appealed his four-year sentence for aggravated flight from an officer, arguing that the sentence was excessive and that the trial court failed to provide an adequate factual basis or adequately consider mitigating factors.
Standard of review
The appellate court applies a two-step review for excessive sentences: whether the record shows that the trial court considered the criteria of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, and whether the sentence is constitutionally excessive. Within statutory limits, sentencing is reviewed for manifest abuse of discretion; the appellate court does not decide whether another sentence would have been more appropriate.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Jerron Bailey, Sr. v. State of Louisiana
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingcriminal procedureappellate procedurecruel and unusual punishmentstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal lawsentencingappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court adequately complied with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and sufficiently particularized Bailey's sentence.
  2. Whether Bailey's four-year sentence for aggravated flight from an officer was constitutionally excessive under La. Const. art. I, § 20.
  3. Whether the trial court manifestly abused its sentencing discretion by imposing a sentence near the upper end of the statutory range.

Holdings

  1. The trial court adequately particularized Bailey's sentence by referencing Bailey's sentencing memorandum, which identified the relevant mitigating factors; the court was not required to list every aggravating and mitigating circumstance.
  2. Bailey's four-year sentence was not constitutionally excessive because it was not grossly disproportionate to the offense, did not constitute a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering, and did not shock the sense of justice.
  3. The trial court did not manifestly abuse its broad sentencing discretion by imposing four years at hard labor for aggravated flight from an officer.

Key quotations

The articulation of a factual basis for a sentence is the goal of article 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions. (at 3)
On review, the appellate court does not determine whether another sentence may have been more appropriate, but whether the trial court abused its discretion. (at 4)

Factual background

Bailey refused to stop after a Shreveport police officer initiated a traffic stop for driving 92 miles per hour in a 60-mile-per-hour zone. During the approximately thirteen-minute pursuit, Bailey drove through residential and major roads, ran red lights and stop signs, crossed the yellow center line, and ultimately was arrested at his home. A jury convicted him of aggravated flight from an officer and acquitted him of aggravated assault upon a peace officer; the trial court imposed four years at hard labor.

Procedural history

A jury convicted Bailey of aggravated flight from an officer and acquitted him of aggravated assault upon a peace officer. The First Judicial District Court for Caddo Parish denied Bailey's motion for new trial, motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal, and motion to reconsider sentence, then sentenced him to four years at hard labor. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit affirmed the sentence.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…