State v. Boswell, 62 So. 3d 874

Boswell pled guilty to one count of attempted aggravated rape; one other count (indecent behavior with a juvenile) remained as part of the indictment but not pled to.
He was convicted/sentenced on the plea to 48 years at hard labor without parole, probation, or suspension; money seized at arrest was forfeited.
The victim was an 11-year-old girl; the alleged conduct occurred between December 2008 and August 2009 in Webster Parish, Louisiana.
At the Boykin hearing, State would prove sexual intercourse with a minor and the statements after Mirandization; defense conceded substantial factual accuracy subject to one clarification on frequency.
The trial court applied La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, reviewed the PSI, and found aggravating and mitigating factors supporting the sentence.
The court noted the defendant’s trust relationship to the victim, the age and vulnerability of the victim, and defendant’s lack of prior felony history, while recognizing some remorse but indicating continued blame on the victim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the 48-year sentence excessive under proportionality review?	Boswell argues excessive, not individualized given mitigating factors and plea circumstances.	Boswell contends the sentence is disproportionate to the offense and fails to account for mitigating factors.	Not excessive; sentence within statutory range and not grossly disproportionate.
Did counsel’s performance render the conviction or sentence voidable due to ineffective assistance?	Boswell asserts counsel failed to consult, investigate, object, and challenge grand jury issues, affecting plea and sentencing.	Boswell contends ineffective assistance; record insufficient for full merits in direct appeal; post-conviction appropriate for evidentiary hearing.	Claims form a basis for post-conviction relief, not on direct appeal; affirmed that they require an evidentiary hearing in trial court.

State v. Smith, 839 So.2d 1 (La. 2003) (gross disproportionality standard for excessive sentences)
State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (proportionality review for sentences)
State v. Bonanno, 384 So.2d 355 (La. 1980) (historical proportionality framework)
State v. Weaver, 805 So.2d 166 (La. 2002) (disproportionate punishment standard)
State v. Lobato, 603 So.2d 739 (La. 1992) (proportionality in sentencing analysis)
State v. Robinson, 948 So.2d 379 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2007) (appellate review of proportionality and discretion)
State v. Bradford, 691 So.2d 864 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1997) (considerations in reviewing harsh sentences)
State v. Guzman, 769 So.2d 1158 (La. 2000) (limits on trial court discretion in sentencing)
State v. June, 873 So.2d 939 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2004) (support for trial court's discretion in sentencing)
State v. Lingefelt, 865 So.2d 280 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2004) (ineffective assistance of counsel considerations on appeal)
State v. Germany, 981 So.2d 792 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2008) (plea bargains and discretion in maximum sentencing)
State v. Black, 669 So.2d 667 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1996) (great discretion to impose maximum sentence post-plea)