State of Louisiana v. Andre Bell, 310 So.3d 307

On Nov. 24, 2017, Andre Bell snatched casino winnings and fled in a vehicle; casino contract officers fired at the car as it sped toward them; no officers were injured.
Bell was charged with simple robbery and attempted first-degree murder (later amended to aggravated assault with a motor vehicle upon a peace officer). A jury convicted him of the aggravated-assault charge; the robbery charge resulted in a mistrial.
Trial court initially sentenced Bell to 10 years at hard labor (maximum for the offense). The State then filed a habitual-offender bill alleging Bell was a third felony offender.
At the habitual-offender hearing the court found Bell was a third felony offender and vacated the 10-year sentence, sentencing him to 15 years at hard labor (mid-range of the enhanced 1–20 year exposure).
Bell timely moved to reconsider, arguing the sentence was excessive, the court relied on improper aggravating factors (including elements of the offense), failed to consider mitigating evidence (intoxication), and the State used an incorrect cleansing period; the court denied relief and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessiveness of 15‑year habitual‑offender sentence	Sentence is within statutory enhanced range and supported by facts/aggravators	15 years is excessive given circumstances	Affirmed — not excessive; court did not abuse discretion
Use of offense elements as aggravating factors	Court permissibly relied on articulated aggravators and record from original sentencing	Court improperly used elements (e.g., attempting to hit officer) as aggravators	Rejected — treating those facts as aggravating was proper
Failure to consider intoxication as mitigation	Intoxication claimed by Bell should mitigate culpability	Intoxication evidence was self‑serving and contradicted by trial testimony	Rejected — trial court reasonably declined to credit intoxication claim
Cleansing period / predicate validity	Trial applied a 10‑year cleansing period; defense implies error	Any cleansing‑period error harmless because predicates fall within five years	Harmless error — predicates valid; adjudication stands

State v. Dorthey, 623 So. 2d 1276 (La. 1993) (constitutional excessiveness standard: gross disproportionality)
State v. Weaver, 805 So. 2d 166 (La. 2002) (gross‑disproportionality test explained)
State v. Williams, 893 So. 2d 7 (La. 2004) (trial court has wide sentencing discretion within statutory limits)
State v. Jones, 398 So. 2d 1049 (La. 1981) (articulation requirement for sentencing considerations)
State v. Kelly, 277 So. 3d 855 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2019) (articulation of factual basis is the goal of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1)
State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983) (trial court need not list every aggravating/mitigating factor)
State v. McGill, 253 So. 3d 872 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2018) (trial court may judicially notice prior proceedings in same case during habitual‑offender hearing)
State v. Thompson, 189 So. 3d 1139 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2016) (sentencing review standards reiterated)