State v. Boehm, 217 So. 3d 596

Defendant Ernest Allen Boehm, Jr. pled guilty to 50 counts of molestation of a juvenile (La. R.S. 14:81.2) involving two adopted daughters for conduct from 2010–2015.
Pleas entered by bill of information after indictment; Boykin advisals given and no plea agreement as to sentence.
At sentencing the court imposed 30 years at hard labor on each count, to run concurrently; trial court noted aggravating facts (multiple victims, repeated abuse over years) and mitigating facts (first felony offender, early confession, remorse).
Defendant moved to reconsider, arguing sentences were excessive and that remorse/admission merited greater consideration; motion denied and defendant appealed.
Appellate court affirmed convictions and found no abuse of sentencing discretion, but identified an error patent: the trial court did not specify the portion of each sentence to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension as required by La. R.S. 14:81.2.
Because the statute requires at least five years be without benefits and the court has discretion to set the exact period, the sentences were vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to specify the required period without benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 30-year concurrent sentences were excessive	State: sentences within statutory range and appropriate given repeated, prolonged abuse and harm to victims	Boehm: sentences are excessive given lack of prior record, remorse, early plea; cited lesser sentences in other cases	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; record shows consideration of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and sentences not grossly disproportionate
Whether sentencing complied with statutory requirement to deny benefits	State: sentencing generally proper but must comply with statutory penalty language	Boehm: (implicit) trial court failed to specify benefit-free portion; sentencing error	Held: Error patent — trial court failed to specify portion to be served without parole/probation/suspension; sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing to comply with La. R.S. 14:81.2

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (defendant must be advised of rights before guilty plea)
State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La. 1983) (trial court need not list every aggravating/mitigating circumstance if record shows adequate consideration of art. 894.1)
State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (sentence violative of La. Const. art. I, § 20 if grossly disproportionate)
State v. Fruge, 179 So.3d 579 (La. 2015) (factors for determining whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate)
State v. Weaver, 805 So.2d 166 (La. 2002) (sentence shocks sense of justice standard)