The Louisiana Court of Appeal has upheld the five-year hard labor sentence of Demaxamillion Keyshawn Washington. This decision affects Washington, who was convicted of aggravated criminal damage to property. The ruling is significant as it reinforces the court's authority in determining appropriate sentences based on a defendant's criminal history and the nature of their offenses.
Washington was charged with aggravated criminal damage to property after an incident on February 6, 2022. He pled guilty to the charges on October 13, 2025, as part of a plea agreement that saw two additional felony charges dismissed. This case was heard in the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, where Judge Michael Owens Craig presided over the proceedings.
The dispute arose when Washington appealed his sentence, arguing that it was excessive and unconstitutional. He claimed that the trial court did not provide a sufficient factual basis for the sentence and that it failed to consider his arguments regarding his probation history. Washington's attorney filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, which was denied, leading to the appeal.
In its ruling, the Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the five-year sentence imposed by the trial court. Judge Robinson, along with Judges Pitman and Thompson, stated, "Washington’s five-year hard labor sentence does not shock the sense of justice, and the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing it." The court emphasized that the trial judge had considered Washington's lengthy criminal history as an aggravating factor, while also recognizing his consistent court appearances as a mitigating circumstance.
The court explained that the trial court is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating circumstance during sentencing, as long as the record reflects adequate consideration of the guidelines. Washington's history of nine arrests, with eight being for crimes against a person or felonies, played a significant role in the court's decision. The appellate court noted that the trial judge had firsthand knowledge of Washington's background due to previous court appearances, which informed the sentencing decision.
Washington's appeal raised questions about the constitutionality of his sentence. The court ruled that a sentence is considered excessive if it is grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense. The judges found that Washington's five-year sentence was within the statutory limits for his crime, which carries a potential punishment of up to 15 years in prison. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
This ruling has implications for future cases involving similar offenses and sentencing considerations. It underscores the importance of a defendant's criminal history in determining appropriate sentences and reinforces the discretion that trial judges have in these matters. The decision may also serve as a precedent for other defendants challenging their sentences on the grounds of excessiveness.
Looking ahead, Washington has the option to file an application for rehearing within the time allowed by law. However, the appellate court's ruling stands for now, affirming the trial court's judgment. There are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling, but Washington's case may influence how similar cases are approached in the future.