State v. Elmore, 80 So. 3d 731

Darry Ray Elmore stabbed Emanuel Neal seven times during a confrontation in a housing-unit parking lot after a skating-rink dispute, leading to Neal’s death the next day.
Elmore was indicted for second-degree murder; he later pleaded guilty to manslaughter in February 2011 without a sentencing agreement.
The trial court found Elmore competent to plead, advised him of Boykin rights, and scheduled a PSI before sentencing.
At sentencing, the court noted Elmore’s criminal history and social background, including six prior misdemeanor convictions and a lack of child support payments.
Elmore received a 32-year hard-labor sentence for manslaughter; he moved to reconsider the sentence as excessive.
The appellate court affirmed Elmore’s conviction and sentence, reviewing for excessiveness under La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and Article I, § 20.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 32-year sentence for manslaughter is excessive	Elmore argues the sentence is excessive due to provocation by the victim.	Elmore contends the trial court failed to adequately consider fear/provocation and abused sentencing discretion.	No; the sentence is not excessive and within the court’s discretion.

State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La. 1983) (excessiveness framework involves Art. 894.1 considerations)
State v. Landos, 419 So.2d 475 (La. 1982) (art. 894.1 articulation not rigid; considers defendant’s history and offense)
State v. Swayzer, 989 So.2d 267 (La.App.2d Cir. 2008) (art. 894.1 factors applied to sentencing decisions)
State v. Key, 58 So.3d 578 (La.App.2d Cir. 2011) (great discretion when plea reduces exposure and offense involves violence)
State v. Guzman, 769 So.2d 1158 (La. 2000) (abuse of sentencing discretion requires manifest error)
State v. June, 873 So.2d 939 (La.App.2d Cir. 2004) (summary of appellate review for excessiveness)
State v. Lingefelt, 865 So.2d 1165 (La.App.2d Cir. 2004) (post-plea sentencing discretion considerations)