194 So. 3d 674
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Jeremy Dewayne Foster pled guilty to seven charges: armed robbery with a firearm (Feb. 5, 2013), four counts of simple burglary (various dates in 2012–2013), and two counts of simple arson (June 3 & 16, 2012; damages $25,000 and $15,000).
- Factual basis: Foster and a cousin used a stolen vehicle to rob a bank at gunpoint (discharged firearm); burglaries of car dealerships and a gas station; two arsons were set to conceal burglaries.
- Sentences imposed: 20 years at hard labor without benefits for armed robbery (plus a 5‑year firearm enhancement), six years each for the four burglaries (concurrent with each other, but consecutive to robbery and arson), and six years each for the two arsons (concurrent with each other, but consecutive to robbery and burglary) — resulting in an effective total of 32 years.
- Foster appealed, arguing his sentences were excessive given his age, limited prior record, remorse, and family hardship; the state defended the sentences as appropriate.
- The court affirmed all convictions, affirmed the armed robbery and arson sentences, but vacated and remanded the burglary sentences because the trial court failed to specify whether those burglary terms were to be served with or without hard labor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessiveness of aggregate sentence | Sentences are justified by violent conduct, economic harm, planning, and prior convictions | Foster: 32 years is excessive given youth, limited record, remorse, family hardship | Affirmed: trial court considered La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1; sentences not grossly disproportionate; 20 years for robbery is within range and overall punishment does not shock the conscience |
| Consecutive vs. concurrent terms | Court reasonably ordered some sentences consecutive based on nature of offenses | Foster challenges aggregate effect | Affirmed: trial court explained consecutive treatment by offense nature and harms; exercise of discretion upheld |
| Indeterminate burglary sentences (failure to state hard labor) | Court should specify hard labor status for burglary terms | Foster notes omission renders sentences indeterminate under La. C. Cr. P. art. 879 | Vacated and remanded for resentencing on burglaries with direction to specify with/without hard labor |
| Mandatory fines for arson | State maintains sentencing otherwise correct; did not seek remand for fines | Foster notes no fines imposed though statute mandates them | Court declines to remand for fines: arson sentences are statutory hard labor terms so not indeterminate; failure to impose fines results in illegally lenient sentence but state did not seek correction and defendant is indigent, so no remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (standards for valid guilty plea waiver of constitutional rights)
- State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La. 1983) (appellate review requires record showing consideration of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1)
- State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (constitutionally excessive sentence standard)
- State v. Weaver, 805 So.2d 166 (La. 2002) (gross disproportionality/sentencing review)
- State v. Wallace, 31 So.3d 557 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (trial court discretion to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences)
- State v. Thomas, 935 So.2d 345 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (failure to state hard labor renders sentence indeterminate)