State v. Hough, 103 So. 3d 477

Hough pleaded guilty to the responsive charge of attempted aggravated rape as part of a plea agreement after originally being charged with aggravated rape.
The state dismissed charges for molestation of a juvenile and pornography involving juveniles.
The court accepted the plea and ordered a presentence investigation.
At sentencing, the court noted the substantial plea-bargain benefits and described the horrific conduct admitted by Hough.
Hough was sentenced to 45 years at hard labor without benefits, despite the completed offense carrying a life sentence under the statute.
The judgment did not include proper sex offender notification, triggering remand for written notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is excessive under Article 1, Section 20.	State argues sentence within discretion given plea benefits.	Hough argues factors like health, marital status, and rehabilitation were not adequately weighed.	No manifest abuse; sentence not excessive within discretion.
Whether the trial court properly informed Hough of sex offender registration requirements.	State alleges required notification was omitted.	Hough asserts lack of written notice violated statute.	Remand for proper written sex offender notification and minute entry.

State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La.1983) (guidelines under Article 894.1 considered for sentencing)
State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La.1982) (adequacy of factual basis for sentence even if not fully compliant with Article 894.1)
State v. Swayzer, 989 So.2d 267 (La.App.2d Cir.) (sentencing considerations under Art. 894.1)
State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La.1993) (proportionality review for gross disparity)
State v. Guzman, 769 So.2d 1158 (La.2000) (abuse of discretion in sentencing absent manifest error)
State v. Drake, 71 So.3d 452 (La.App.2d Cir.2011) (remand for proper sex offender notification)
State v. Lingefelt, 865 So.2d 280 (La.App.2d Cir.2004) (consideration of factors in Art. 894.1)