Appeal from the 23rd Judicial District Court In and for the
Parish of Ascension State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 32,
288 Honorable Thomas Kliebert, Jr., Judge Presiding
L. Babin District Attorney Donald D. Candell Assistant
District Attorney Gonzales, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellee,
State of Louisiana
L. Beebe Louisiana Appellate Project New Orleans, Louisiana
Attorney for Defendant/ Appellant, Edward Caldwell
BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.
defendant, Edward Caldwell, was charged by grand jury
indictment with two counts of aggravated rape (victims under
thirteen years of age), violations of La. R.S. 14:42 (prior
to amendment by 2015 La. Acts Nos. 184, §1 and 256,
§1) (counts one and two); and molestation of a juvenile,
a violation of La. R.S. 14:81.2 (count three). He entered a plea
of not guilty and, following a jury trial, was found guilty
as charged on all three counts. As to counts one and two, on
each count he was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment at
hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or
suspension of sentence. On count three, the defendant was
sentenced to twenty years at hard labor. The district court
ordered that the sentences on counts one and two run
consecutively with each other and concurrently with that
imposed on count three. The defendant now appeals,
challenging the sentences imposed by the district court. For
the following reasons, we affirm the defendant's
convictions and sentences.
attending a family birthday party on July 4, 2013, at the
home of her half-sister, Leslie Cooper, the victim, A.K.,
disclosed that her father, the defendant, had been molesting
Investigations revealed that the defendant had also been
molesting A.K.'s younger sister, C.K. Both girls were
taken to the Audrey Hepburn Care Center for examinations and
tested positive for chlamydia. The defendant tested positive
for the same species of chlamydia as A.K. and C.K.
trial, A.K. testified that the defendant began touching her
private area with his hand when she was six years old. When
she was twelve years old and living in an R.V. park in
Gonzales, Louisiana, the defendant forced her to engage in
vaginal sexual intercourse multiple times per week. A.K.
testified that the defendant raped her more than twenty
times. The defendant also forced A.K. to perform oral sex on
him, which she testified occurred less than ten times. The
abuse continued until A.K. was removed from the home after
the July 4, 2013, disclosure. A.K. also testified that she
witnessed the defendant touch C.K.'s private area when
C.K. was ten or eleven years old.
testified that the defendant touched her private area with
his hand more than one time. When she turned twelve years
old, the defendant began raping her. C.K. testified that the
sexual vaginal intercourse happened more than twenty times.
The defendant also forced her to perform oral sex on him.
victims' mother testified that she and the defendant
began dating when she was fourteen years old and he was
thirty-four years old and that they had been together for
over fifteen years. She stated that she did not witness the
defendant rape her daughters, but that it was a
"possibility." The defendant testified at trial and
denied abusing A.K. and C.K. as well as testing positive for
sole assignment of error, the defendant contends that the
district court imposed excessive sentences. Specifically, he
argues that the district court erred by ordering the
sentences on counts one and two to run consecutively.
According to the defendant, "there is nothing
[indicated] in the facts of this case that justify the
[district] court's consecutive sentence."
thorough review of the record indicates that the defendant
did not make or file a motion to reconsider sentence
following the district court's imposition of the
sentences. Under La. Code Crim. P. art. 88LIE, the failure to
make or file a motion to reconsider sentence shall preclude
the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence on
appeal, including a claim of excessiveness. See State v.
Mims,619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993) (per curiam). The
defendant, therefore, is procedurally barred from having this
assignment of error reviewed. See State ...