A remand for resentencing is appropriate only when there appears to be a substantial possibility that the defendant's complaints of an excessive sentence have merit.
After a defendant challenged his sentence, the court considered whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a specific punishment. The court determines that on appellate review of a sentence, the only relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion rather than whether a different sentence would have been more appropriate. For legal sentences within a legislatively provided range, an abuse of discretion occurs only if the punishment is disproportionate to the offense. Where the record fails to fully articulate the consideration of mitigating factors, a remand for resentencing is appropriate only when there appears to be a substantial possibility that the defendant's complaints of an excessive sentence have merit.
At page 608 Reviewing sentencing discretion for abuse of discretion11 citing cases“a remand for resentencing is appropriate only when there appears to be a substantial possibility that the defendant's complaints of an excessive sentence have merit.”
- State of Louisiana v. Brandon R. Laurant, 363 So. 3d 381 (La. Ct. App. 2019).published See State v. Soraparu, 97-1027, p. 1 (La. 10/13/97), 703 So.2d 608 , 608 (per curiam). “[A] remand for resentencing is appropriate only when there appears to be a substantial possibility that the defendant’s complaints of an excessive sent…
- State v. Hyman, 33 So. 3d 271 (La. Ct. App. 2010).publishedOn appellate review of a sentence, the only relevant question is “ ‘whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.’ ” State v. Soraparu, 97-1027 (La.10/13/97),…
- State v. Lewis, 16 So. 3d 385 (La. Ct. App. 2009).published On appellate review of sentence, the only relevant question is “‘whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.’ ” State v. Soraparu, 97-1027 (La.10/13/97), 70…
- State v. Dove, 194 So. 3d 92 (La. Ct. App. 2016).published See State v. Soraparu, 97-1027, p. 1 (La.10/13/97), 703 So.2d 608, 608 (per curiam). “[A] remand for resentencing is appropriate only when there appears to be a substantial possibility that the defendant’s complaints of an excessive senten…
- State v. Norah, 131 So. 3d 172 (La. Ct. App. 2013).published See State v. Soraparu, 97-1027, p. 1 (La.10/13/97), 703 So.2d 608, 608 (per curiam). “[A] remand for resen-tencing is appropriate only when |39there appears to be a substantial possibility that the defendant’s complaints of an excessive se…
- State v. Lemon, 951 So. 2d 1177 (La. Ct. App. 2007).published
- State v. Myers, 753 So. 2d 898 (La. Ct. App. 1999).published
- State v. Underwood, 724 So. 2d 859 (La. Ct. App. 1998).published
- State of Louisiana v. Tashonty C Toney, 331 So. 3d 398 (La. Ct. App. 2021).published
Other citing cases
- State Of Louisiana v. Brandt Anthony Bennett, No. 2024KA0390 (La. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2024).
- State v. Hamdalla, 126 So. 3d 619 (La. Ct. App. 2013).published
- State v. McBride, 807 So. 2d 836 (La. 2002).published
- State v. Black, 757 So. 2d 887 (La. Ct. App. 2000).published
- State v. Taves, 861 So. 2d 144 (La. 2003).published
- State v. Williams, 778 So. 2d 1232 (La. Ct. App. 2001).published
v.
George SORAPARU.
PER CURIAM[*].
Granted in part. The decision of the Fourth Circuit is reversed insofar as it vacates the defendant's sentence and remands for resentencing before a different judge, and the sentence imposed by the trial court is reinstated. On appellate review of sentence, the only relevant question is "`whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.'" State v. Cook, 95-2784, p. 3 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957, 959 (quoting State v. Humphrey, 445 So.2d 1155, 1165 (La.1984)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996). For legal sentences imposed within the range provided by the legislature, a trial court abuses its discretion only when it contravenes the prohibition of excessive punishment in La. Const. art. I, § 20, i.e., when it imposes "punishment disproportionate to the offense." State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 767 (La.1979). In cases in which the trial court has left a less than fully articulated record indicating that it has considered not only aggravating circumstances but also factors militating for a less severe sentence, State v. Franks, 373 So.2d 1307, 1308 (La.1979), a remand for resentencing is appropriate only when "there appear[s] to be a substantial possibility that the defendant's complaints of an excessive sentence ha[ve] merit." State v. Wimberly, 414 So.2d 666, 672 (La.1982). The trial court's finding in this case that the defendant committed a "cold and deliberate act" which would have fully justified the return of a verdict of second degree murder adequately supports the sentence imposed.
CALOGERO, C.J. and LEMMON, J., would grant and docket.
JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ.
[*] KNOLL, J., not on panel. See Rule IV, Part 2, § 3.