Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court In and for the
Parish of St. Tammany State of Louisiana Trial Court No.
604177 Honorable Peter J. Garcia, Judge Presiding
L. Montgomery District Attorney Matthew Caplan Butch Wilson
Assistant District Attorneys Covington, LA Attorneys for
Appellee, State of Louisiana
T. Vo Clark Louisiana Appellate Project Mandeville, LA
Attorney for Defendant -Appellant, Sean Taylor Bass
BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.
defendant, Sean Taylor Bass, was charged by bill of
information with video voyeurism (of sexual intercourse), a
violation of La. R.S. 14;283(A). The defendant pled not
guilty and, following a jury trial, was found guilty as
charged. The defendant was sentenced to three years
imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole,
probation, or suspension of sentence. The defendant filed a
motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied. The
defendant now appeals, designating two assignments of error.
early months of 2017, J.G. met the defendant on Grindr, a phone
app predominantly for the homosexual community. They agreed
to have sex, and J.G. went to a house in Mandeville to meet
the defendant. The defendant and J.G. had sex. Unknown to
J.G., the defendant had recorded their sexual encounter with
a laptop that was near the bed. The defendant then uploaded a
video of the encounter to Pornhub, a pornographic website.
J.G. discovered the video on the site and contacted the
police. J.G. testified at trial that while the sex was
consensual, he never consented to being recorded by the
defendant, and he never consented to having a video of his
encounter with the defendant being uploaded to Pornhub.
defendant testified at trial. According to the defendant, he
was "pretty confident" that the agreement between
him and J.G. was that their sexual encounter would be
recorded; and that the very fact that J.G. had sex with him
was testament to that agreement. The defendant agreed on
cross-examination that he did not have J.G.'s consent to
upload the video to Pornhub.
OF ERROR NOS. 1 and 2
these related assignments of error, the defendant argues,
respectively, the trial court erred in denying the motion to
reconsider sentence; and the sentence is unconstitutionally
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Article I, section 20, of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit
the imposition of excessive punishment. Although a sentence
falls within statutory limits, it may be excessive. State
v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 767 (La. 1979). 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. A sentence is considered grossly
disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are
considered in light of the harm to society, it shocks the
sense of justice. See State v. Fruge, 2014-1172 (La.
10/14/15), 179 So.3d 579, 583; State v. Andrews,
94-0842 (La.App. 1st Cir. 5/5/95), 655 So.2d 448, 454. The
trial court has great discretion in imposing a sentence
within the statutory limits, and such a sentence will not be
set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of
discretion. See State v. Shaikh, 2016-0750 (La.
10/18/17), 236 So.3d 1206, 1209 (per curiam); State v.
Holts, 525 So.2d 1241, 1245 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1988). 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. State v. Thomas, 98-1144 (La. 10/9/98),
719 So.2d 49, 50 (per curiam).
Code of Criminal Procedure article 894.1 sets forth the
factors for the trial court to consider when imposing
sentence. While the entire checklist of Article 894.1 need
not be recited, the record must reflect the trial court
adequately considered the criteria. State v. Brown,
2002-2231 (La.App. 1st Cir. 5/9/03), 849 So.2d 566, 569. The
articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal
of Article 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its
provisions. Where the record clearly shows an adequate
factual basis for the sentence imposed, remand is unnecessary
even where there has not been full compliance with Article
894.1. State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475, 478 (La.
1982); State v. Ducote, 2016-1457 (La.App. 1st Cir.
4/12/17), 222 So.3d 724, 727. The trial judge should review
the defendant's personal history, his prior criminal
record, the seriousness of the offense, the likelihood that
he will commit another crime, and his potential for
rehabilitation through correctional services other than
confinement. State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049, 1051-52
(La. 1981); State v. James, 2016-1250 (La.App. 1st
Cir. 2/17/17), 215 So.3d 269, 271.
sentencing range for the defendant was a fine of not more
than ten thousand dollars and imprisonment at hard labor for
not less than one year or more than five years without
benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
See La. R.S. 14:283(B)(3). The defendant was
sentenced to three years at hard labor, with no fine. The
defendant suggests in brief that he is a drug addict who
videoed a consensual sexual encounter with a stranger, then
uploaded the video to Pornhub, while under the influence of
drugs. Later, he tried to take the video off the site, ...