State v. Fatheree, 77 So. 3d 1047

Fatheree pled guilty to an amended charge of indecent behavior with a juvenile and was sentenced to seven years at hard labor, four years suspended, and five years’ supervised probation.
The state nolle pros the carnal knowledge charge in exchange for the guilty plea.
The victim was a 15-year-old girl (T.Z.) and the conduct occurred between February and July 2009 in Bossier Parish.
The factual basis included touching, kissing with tongue, and texting to arouse or gratify sexual desires by the defendant, who was the victim’s martial arts instructor.
The PSI described prior reports of kissing and inappropriate conduct; later information suggested possible intercourse per expert Craig, prompting the additional charge of carnal knowledge.
The trial court considered mitigating factors (age 42, first-time felony, family hardship) and aggravating factors (age difference, position of authority) before imposing the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is excessive under Art. 894.1	Fatheree argues the seven-year term is excessive given no prior felony history.	Court properly weighed mitigating factors and not required to state every factor; punishment is within discretion.	No manifest abuse; sentence not grossly excessive.
Whether the trial court properly relied on the victim’s mental health counselor report	Court relied on inadmissible or uncorroborated evidence to bolster the claim of intercourse.	Courts may rely on broad information, including hearsay and non-traditional sources, in sentencing.	Relying on that report was proper and did not violate due process.
Whether plea bargain and exposure justified the sentence	Plea reduced exposure; thus sentence should reflect the conceded lesser offense.	Plea bargain provided substantial benefit; court could sentence within maximum for the pled offense.	Sentence not grossly out of proportion given plea benefit and offense context.

State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La. 1983) (aggravating/mitigating considerations under Art. 894.1 and proportionality principles)
State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La. 1982) (adequate factual basis suffices for sentences without rigid compliance)
State v. Swayzer, 989 So.2d 267 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2009) (consideration of factors and sufficient record for not remanding)
State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049 (La. 1981) (factors for sentencing including personal history and likelihood of rehabilitation)
State v. Ates, 989 So.2d 259 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2009) (art. 894.1 guidance and discretion in sentencing)
State v. Shumaker, 945 So.2d 277 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2006) (no rigid weighting required; adequate articulation suffices)
State v. Burgess, 965 So.2d 621 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2007) (plea benefits and sentencing discretion considerations)
State v. Ross, 811 So.2d 176 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2002) (legitimacy of considering plea-based reductions in sentencing)
State v. Lingefelt, 865 So.2d 280 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2004) (availability of broad sentencing information)
State v. Guzman, 769 So.2d 1158 (La. 2000) (limits on appellate reweighing of sentence)