State v. Martin

¶1Defendant Martin was charged by bill of information with distribution of cocaine (La.R.S. 40:967 A). After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty as charged. A presentence investigation was ordered and reviewed. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to serve 9 years imprisonment. Defendant appealed, alleging insufficient evidence and excessive sentence.* We affirm.

¶2On February 27, 1985, defendant sold cocaine to Larry Buford, an undercover drug officer on loan from the Monroe Police Department, in Bastrop.

¶3The facts leading to this transaction and defendant’s subsequent arrest are as follows:

¶4In early January 1985, a confidential informant, Larry Burton, told patrolman Gale Rogers of the Bastrop Police Department that he could purchase cocaine from defendant. This information was relayed to Sargent Gary Carver and Captain Alan Freeman, detectives with the Bastrop Police Department. Captain Freeman later called the Monroe Police Department and requested that an officer be assigned for an undercover operation.

¶5On February 27, 1985, Larry Buford, the officer assigned from Monroe, met with Captain Freeman and Sargent Carver in Bastrop. Officer Buford concealed a microphone on his person and accompanied Burton to defendant’s trailer.

¶6Freeman, Carver, and Patrolman Rogers, who had arrived later, positioned themselves a few blocks from defendant’s residence so they could hear the drug transaction on the “body mike”.

¶7Buford and Burton proceeded to defendant’s home. Burton introduced defendant to Buford as “Catfish”. Defendant then sold Buford three “sheets”, e.g., small tinfoil packages of cocaine, of white powder, later identified as cocaine, for $20 each.

¶8Sufficiency of Evidence

¶9Defendant apparently contends that the jury should have not believed the undercover officer’s identification of defendant. Defendant argues that the officer was incorrect as to defendant’s height and did not notice a scar on defendant’s forehead.

¶10Officer Buford testified that he was positive defendant was the man who sold cocaine to him on February 27, 1985. The transaction took place at defendant’s residence. In addition Patrolman Rogers testified he was familiar with defendant’s voice, and recognized the voice of the person who *1207sold cocaine to Officer Buford as that of defendant.

¶11After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that any rational trier-of-fact could have found the essential elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶12Excessive Sentence

¶13Defendant contends that the 9 year sentence was imposed with “little regard for the sentencing guidelines as outlined in the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure”. This assignment of error is also meritless.

¶14Defendant is 37 years of age and has a high school education. He has never been married, but has one daughter (defendant has never seriously contributed to her support). Defendant briefly served in the military. He has not been employed since 1983.

¶15Defendant has no juvenile record, but has been convicted as an adult for possession of heroin, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, two separate counts of resisting an officer, and a number of traffic violations.

¶16Defendant maintained his innocence and showed no remorse for committing the instant offense. The trial judge considered the evidence presented in the case and his independent judgment was in accord with the jury verdict.

¶17The trial court found that information provided to law enforcement officers indicated defendant was regularly involved in selling drugs. He had both marijuana and cocaine available for sale.

¶18Defendant has no family obligations that would create any hardship on him or anyone else apart from the inconvenience and dislike of being incarcerated.

¶19Defendant’s criminal record indicates an attitude of little regard for the rules of society expressed in the criminal laws.

¶20The trial judge found that by selling cocaine, a very serious drug, defendant knew or should have known he was creating a likelihood of serious harm, or even death, to the recipients of the drug. Defendant’s only concern was to obtain money from the sales.

¶21The trial judge concluded defendant was not a good risk for probation or other lenient treatment. He requires a substantial period of incarceration and confined treatment. Any lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the crime.

¶22DECREE

¶23For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.