excessive sentence claim in Louisiana

1998Nor does the Louisiana Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La.1993) (wherein the defendant presented a motion for reconsideration at the trial court level), obviate the statutory requirement that a motion to reconsider sentence be filed in *1288 order to preserve an excessive sentence claim for appellate review.

1994However, in State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La.1993), the Supreme Court reviewed an excessive sentence claim where the motion to reconsider failed to set forth the grounds on which it was based as required by C.Cr.P.

2012This assignment of error is without merit. • Excessive Sentence The defendant also asserts that his sentence for aggravated burglary is excessive. 3 In State v. Barling, 00-1241, 00-1591, p. 12 (La.App. 8 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035, 1042-43 , writ denied, 01-838 (La.2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 , a panel of this court addressed the review of excessive sentence claims, stating: La.

2008Excessive Sentence The defendant argues that his sentence is excessive, "particularly in light of the fact that the trial court erred in failing to review mitigating factors relevant to a reduced sentence[.]" In State v. Barling, 00-1241, 00-1591, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035, 1042-43 , writ denied, 01-838 (La.2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 , this court articulated the standard for reviewing excessive sentence claims: La.

2012This assignment of error is without merit. • Excessive Sentence The defendant also asserts that his sentence for aggravated burglary is excessive. 3 In State v. Barling, 00-1241, 00-1591, p. 12 (La.App. 8 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035, 1042-43 , writ denied, 01-838 (La.2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 , a panel of this court addressed the review of excessive sentence claims, stating: La.

2008Excessive Sentence The defendant argues that his sentence is excessive, "particularly in light of the fact that the trial court erred in failing to review mitigating factors relevant to a reduced sentence[.]" In State v. Barling, 00-1241, 00-1591, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035, 1042-43 , writ denied, 01-838 (La.2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 , this court articulated the standard for reviewing excessive sentence claims: La.

2014State v. Trepagnier, 97-2427 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/15/99) , 744 So.2d 181, 189 ; Stale v. Black, 98-0457, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/22/00), 757 So.2d 887, 891 . • The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of Art. 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions.

2012State v. Trepagnier, 97-2427 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/15/99) , 744 So.2d 181,189 ; State v. Black, 98-0457, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/22/00), 757 So.2d 887, 891 . • The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of Art. 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions.

2013In State v. Landry, 2003-1671, pp. 7-9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/31/04), 871 So.2d 1235, 1239-40 , this Court set forth the standard for reviewing an excessive sentence claim: La.

2013In State v. Lomax, 11-0591, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/28/11), 81 So.3d 788, 794 , this court set out the pertinent law relating to an excessive sentence argument: In State v. Landry, 03-1671, pp. 7-9 (La.App. 4 Cir.'3/31/04), 871 So.2d 1235, 1239-1240 , this Court set forth the standard for reviewing an excessive sentence claim: La.

1988State v. Bourgeouis, 406 So.2d 550 (La. 1981).

1988In reviewing an excessive sentence claim, the appellate court should look to the reasons articulated by the trial judge for assistance in determining whether a sentence is excessive. *81 State v. Bourgeois, 406 So.2d 550 (La. 1981).

2016State v. Walker, 00-3200, p. 2 (La.10/12/01), 799 So.2d 461, 462 .

2015Jasper, supra (citing State v. Walker, 00-3200, p. 2 (La.10/12/01), 799 So.2d 461, 462 ).

2001Recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Lindsey, 99-3256 (La.10/17/00), 770 So.2d 339 , mandated that the guidelines set forth in State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), 709 So.2d 672 , govern the review of mandatory minimum sentencing under an excessive sentence claim.

2001Recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Lindsey, 99-3256 (La.10/17/00), 770 So.2d 339 , mandated that the guidelines *1097 set forth in State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), 709 So.2d 672 , govern the review of mandatory minimum sentencing under an excessive sentence claim.

2001Recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Lindsey, 99-3256 (La.10/17/00), 770 So.2d 339 , mandated that the guidelines set forth in State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), 709 So.2d 672 , govern the review of mandatory minimum sentencing under an excessive sentence claim.

2001Recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Lindsey, 99-3256 (La.10/17/00), 770 So.2d 339 , mandated that the guidelines *1097 set forth in State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), 709 So.2d 672 , govern the review of mandatory minimum sentencing under an excessive sentence claim.

1988State v. Meshell, 473 So.2d 935 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1985).

1988State v. Meshell, 473 So.2d 935 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1985).

2014State v. Trepagnier, 97-2427 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/15/99) , 744 So.2d 181, 189 ; Stale v. Black, 98-0457, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/22/00), 757 So.2d 887, 891 . • The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of Art. 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions.

2012State v. Trepagnier, 97-2427 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/15/99) , 744 So.2d 181,189 ; State v. Black, 98-0457, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/22/00), 757 So.2d 887, 891 . • The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of Art. 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions.

1983The defendant appeals the sentence imposed by the district court, alleging but one assignment of error, e.g., that the trial court's sentencing of the defendant to the maximum sentence allowed by law constituted an imposition of an excessive sentence in violation of Article 1, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974. [1] In State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979), the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that the imposition of a sentence, although within the statutory limit, may violate a defendant's constitutional right against excessive punishment that is enforceable on appellate

1983Defendant challenges this sentence imposed by the trial court, raising one assignment of error, viz, that the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence in violation of Article 1, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974. 2 In State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979), the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that the imposition of a sentence, although within the statutory limit, may violate a defendant’s constitutional right against excessive punishment that is enforceable on appellate review of his conviction.

2017The State writes that, “considering the nature of the crime[,] the sentence was not excessive under Louisiana law.” In denying the motion to reconsider sentence, the trial court noted it was a “compromise verdict, and the sentence is appropriate.” In State v. Soriano, 15-1006 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/16) , 192 So.3d 899 , the court set forth the applicable law for reviewing an excessive sentence claim.

2017In State v. Soriano, 15-1006 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/16) , 192 So.3d 899 , the court set forth the applicable law for reviewing an excessive sentence claim.

2016“An appellate court reviewing an excessive sentence claim must determine whether the trial court adequately complied with the statutory sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, 9 as well as whether the particular circumstances of the case warrant the sentence imposed.” State v. Boudreaux, 11-1345, p. 5 (La.App, 4 Cir. 7/25/12), 98 So.3d 881, 885 , writ denied sub nom. 12-1907 (La.11/9/12), 100 So.3d 841 (Citations omitted.).

2014This court in State v. Boudreaux, 11-1345, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/25/12), 98 So.3d 881, 884-85 , noted the following well-settled principles that govern our review of a defendant’s excessive sentence claim: • Article l[sic], Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 provides that “No law shall subject any person ... to cruel, excessive, or unusual punishment.” • On appellate review of an excessive sentence claim, the relevant question is not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate but whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion.

2013In support, it cites State v. Jenkins, 2009-1551 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/30/10) , 45 So.3d 173 ; and State v. Mosley, 2003-1947 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/14/04) , 872 So.2d 1220 ; and State v. Rodriguez, 2000-0519 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/14/01) , 781 So.2d 640 , wherein this Court noted that the failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence or object to the sentence does not preserve an excessive sentence claim.

2013In support, it cites State v. Jenkins, 2009-1551 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/30/10) , 45 So.3d 173 ; and State v. Mosley, 2003-1947 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/14/04) , 872 So.2d 1220 ; and State v. Rodriguez, 2000-0519 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/14/01) , 781 So.2d 640 , wherein this Court noted that the failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence or object to the sentence does not preserve an excessive sentence claim.

2014State v. Robinson, 11-0066, p. 17 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/7/11), 81 So.3d 2090 , 99; State v. Major, 96-1214 (La.App. 4 Cir..3/4/98), 708 So.2d 813, 819 . • An appellate court reviewing an excessive sentence claim must determine whether the trial court adequately complied with the statutory sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, as well as whether the particular circumstances of the case warrant the sentence imposed.

2012State v. Robinson, 11-0066, p. 17 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/7/11), 81 So.3d 90, 99 ; State v. Major, 96-1214 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/4/98) , 708 So.2d 813, 819 . • An appellate court reviewing an excessive sentence claim must determine whether the trial court adequately complied with the statutory sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1,as well as whether the particular circumstances of the case warrant the sentence imposed.

2010State v. Trepagnier, 97-2427, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/15/99), 744 So.2d 181, 189 ; State v. Robinson, 98-1606, p. 12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/11/99), 744 So.2d 119, 127 .

2008State v. Trepagnier, 97-2427, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/15/99), 744 So.2d 181, 189 ; State v. Robinson, 98-1606, p. 12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/11/99), 744 So.2d 119, 127 .

2000In State v. Franklin, 94-409 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/94) , 648 So.2d 962 , writ denied, 95-0143 (La.5/19/95), 654 So.2d 1354 , the Fifth Circuit held that it could not review the defendant's excessive sentence claim where he filed a motion for reconsideration after the original sentence was imposed, but failed to file such a motion after he was resentenced as a multiple offender.

2000In State v. Lewis, 98-2575 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/1/00) ; 755 So.2d 1025 , this court cited State v. Franklin, 94-409 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/94) ; 648 So.2d 962 , writ denied, 95-0143 (La.5/19/95); 654 So.2d 1354 , in which the Fifth Circuit held that it could not review the defendant's excessive sentence claim where he filed a motion for reconsideration after the original sentence was imposed, but failed to file such a motion after he was re-sentenced as a multiple offender.

2000In State v. Franklin, 94-409 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/94) , 648 So.2d 962 , writ denied, 95-0143 (La.5/19/95), 654 So.2d 1354 , the Fifth Circuit held that it could not review the defendant's excessive sentence claim where he filed a motion for reconsideration after the original sentence was imposed, but failed to file such a motion after he was resentenced as a multiple offender.

2000In State v. Lewis, 98-2575 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/1/00) ; 755 So.2d 1025 , this court cited State v. Franklin, 94-409 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/94) ; 648 So.2d 962 , writ denied, 95-0143 (La.5/19/95); 654 So.2d 1354 , in which the Fifth Circuit held that it could not review the defendant's excessive sentence claim where he filed a motion for reconsideration after the original sentence was imposed, but failed to file such a motion after he was re-sentenced as a multiple offender.

1988State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d at 1253 .

1988State v. Telsee, supra. In State v. Tompkins, 429 So.2d 1385 (La.1982), the defendant was sentenced to serve 15 years at hard labor on a manslaughter conviction.

2024Id., 611 So.2d at 802 .

2024Id., 611 So.2d at 802 .

2024In rejecting the defendant’s excessive sentence claim, the appellate court observed that the trial court made it possible for the defendant to be released on parole after serving one-third of his twenty-five year sentence, or approximately 8.33 years, and considered the defendant’s 3 At the time of the defendant’s offense in Ellis, 2010-1019, 67 So.3d 623 , the imposition of consecutive sentences for multiple vehicular homicides, although available, was not statutorily mandated. 9 eligibility for early release on good time credits.

2024Id., 2010-1019, p. 6, 67 So.3d at 627 .

2018Citing State v. Crosby , 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976), the State asserts that Defendant's unqualified guilty plea waived any non-jurisdictional defects and precludes appellate review or review on post-conviction.

2018State v. Kisack , 2016-0797 (La. 10/18/17), --- So.3d ----, 2017 WL 4681356 ; State v. Augustine , 555 So.2d 1331 (La. 1990) ; State v. White , 404 So.2d 1202 (La. 1981).

2018App. 2 Cir. 5/11/05), 902 So.2d 1190 , writ denied , 05-1573 (La. 1/27/06), 922 So.2d 545 , the appellate court, in addressing the defendant's assignments of error regarding her sentencing, noted that some facts asserted in the defendant's appellate brief for purposes of the excessive sentence claim were, in reality, issues regarding the validity of the plea agreement.