The sentence for a Lake Charles man convicted of sexual battery against three children has been vacated in light of errors imposed by the trial court, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled. His conviction, however, will stand.

Marlin D. Demouchet was sentenced on July 7, 2021, to 30 years in prison without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence on each of two counts of sexual battery of a victim under 13; 15 years for attempted sexual battery of a victim under 13; 10 years for sexual battery; and five years for one count of simple escape. Those sentences were later modified in August of that year in light of Demouchet’s changed status as a habitual offender to 45 years each on the two sexual battery counts, 20 years for attempted sexual battery and 15 for sexual battery. The simple escape five-year sentence remained the same.

Demouchet was convicted in four attacks involving three children. Three of the attacks occurred between Aug. 1, 2010, and Jan. 31, 2011, at which time one of the victims was between the ages of 9 and 10; the other victim was 8. The fourth attack occurred around Dec. 29, 2014, and involved a 13-year-old victim. Each of the victims were children of women Demouchet dated.

Demouchet was also convicted of escaping from the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office on Feb. 13, 2015.

He appealed his sentence, claiming the court erred in establishing habitualization from an unrelated conviction in 2001; violated his right to a speedy trial; erred in denying his motion for a new trial; and gave an “excessively long sentence.”

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled the first three of Demouchet’s claims have no merit, but has vacated the imposed sentences due to errors.

“We find that the sentences imposed at the habitual offender hearing are indeterminate,” the panel ruled. “The trial court did not vacate the original sentences and impose new habitual offender sentences; rather, it simply amended the original sentences.”

The judges ruled the minutes in the case state the trial court resentenced Demouchet as a habitual offender, and therefore, the trial court’s actions at the habitual offender sentencing were akin to an amendment rather than a resentencing.

“Furthermore, at the original sentencing, the trial court ordered counts one through four to run concurrently and count five to run consecutively,” the panel ruled. “The trial court stated nothing about the sentences running

concurrently and/or consecutively at the habitual offender sentencing.”

The court also said it was unclear as to whether the trial court found Demouchet as a second habitual offender on his simple escape conviction.

The case is being remanded to 14th Judicial District Court for resentencing, with the trial court instructed to specify on which count or counts Demouchet is adjudicated a second habitual offender, to vacate the original sentences on those counts, and to impose a new sentence, if appropriate. The court is also ordered to amend its minutes, which state Demouchet was originally given a three-year sentence on the simple escape conviction and not the five-year sentence that was published.