State of Louisiana v. Sirelderick Deon Hays

No. 56,782-KA (La. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2026) · Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit · February 25, 2026 · No. 56,782-KA

Summary

The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed Sirelderick Deon Hays's convictions for manslaughter, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, as well as his consecutive sentences totaling 130 years. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish Hays's identity as the perpetrator and that the sentences were not constitutionally excessive.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Robinson, J.; Hunter, J.; Ellender, J.
Jurisdiction
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Decision date
February 25, 2026
Docket number
56,782-KA
Procedural posture
Hays appealed his convictions for manslaughter, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and his consecutive sentences totaling 130 years.
Standard of review
For sufficiency of the evidence, the court reviews whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson v. Virginia. The appellate court does not reassess credibility or reweigh evidence. Sentences are reviewed for constitutional excessiveness and abuse of the trial court's broad sentencing discretion; a sentence is excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense or is a needless and purposeless infliction of pain and suffering.
Precedential value
published; precedential Louisiana Court of Appeal opinion
Parties
Sirelderick Deon Hays v. State of Louisiana
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedurestandard of reviewsentencingevidenceappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal appellate practiceevidencesentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hays was the perpetrator of the manslaughter, armed robbery, and firearm-possession offenses.
  2. Whether Hays's consecutive sentences, including maximum or near-maximum sentences, were constitutionally excessive.

Holdings

  1. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Hays was the perpetrator. A single witness's identification and testimony may support a conviction when believed by the factfinder and not internally contradicted or irreconcilably inconsistent with physical evidence.
  2. Hays's sentences were not constitutionally excessive. The consecutive sentences did not constitute a grossly disproportionate punishment or a needless and purposeless infliction of pain and suffering, and the trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion.

Key quotations

A positive identification by only one witness is sufficient to support a conviction. (at 5)
Thus, the defendant’s claim of sentencing error is limited to the issue of constitutional excessiveness. (at 8)

Factual background

During an attempted robbery at the Lakeside Gardens Apartments, Griffin was shot in the neck after struggling with an armed man who took Griffin's AR rifle. Griffin died at the scene. A surviving eyewitness, Marshall, gave statements shortly after the shooting identifying Hays as the shooter, and surveillance footage and physical evidence were consistent with his account. Although Marshall was unwilling at trial to answer identification questions and claimed impaired memory, the jury credited his earlier statements and identification.

Procedural history

Hays was indicted in the First Judicial District Court for Caddo Parish on charges of second degree murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of the responsive offense of manslaughter and convicted as charged on the other two counts. The trial court denied his post-verdict motions, imposed consecutive sentences of 40 years, 75 years, and 15 years plus a fine, and denied his motion to reconsider sentence. The court of appeal affirmed the convictions and sentences.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…