State v. Houston, 181 So. 3d 188

In March 2013 Scott Houston (age 19) and three others planned and committed an armed robbery of Darien Corona; Houston orchestrated the encounter, was holding a handgun, and shot the unarmed victim in the leg while the victim was on the ground.
Victim suffered injuries that left him unable to walk for at least two weeks; phone and backpack were taken during the incident.
Houston was convicted after a bench trial of armed robbery (LSA‑R.S. 14:64) and aggravated second‑degree battery (LSA‑R.S. 14:34.7); a post‑verdict motion for acquittal was denied.
He was adjudicated a second felony habitual offender and sentenced to 60 years at hard labor without benefits on the armed robbery (as a second‑felony habitual offender) and a consecutive 10 years at hard labor on the battery conviction.
Houston appealed, arguing his 70‑year combined sentence is excessive because of his youth, limited prior record, alleged failure of the trial court to order a presentence investigation, and failure to consider mitigating factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is excessive	State: sentence falls within statutory range and is supported by facts and Article 894.1 considerations	Houston: 70 years is abusively harsh given age (19), minimal prior record, no PSI, and alleged failure to consider mitigation	Court: Not excessive; trial court complied with Article 894.1, justified based on cruelty, use of firearm, risk to public, and need for custodial environment
Whether trial court had to order a presentence investigation	State: no statutory requirement to order PSI; court may sentence without one	Houston: absence of PSI deprived court of mitigating information and rendered sentence inappropriate	Court: No requirement to order PSI; defense raised no contemporaneous objection; lack of PSI not reversible error
Whether trial court adequately articulated Article 894.1 factors	State: court considered defendant history, seriousness, risk of recidivism, need for custody, and listed aggravating factors; no mitigating factors found	Houston: court failed to meaningfully consider mitigation	Court: Court provided adequate factual basis and did not require mechanical recitation; articulation satisfied Article 894.1

State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La. 1983) (trial court must take cognizance of Article 894.1 criteria when sentencing)
State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La. 1982) (goal of Article 894.1 is factual articulation, not rigid formula)
State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (sentence is excessive if grossly out of proportion to the crime)
State v. Weaver, 805 So.2d 166 (La. 2002) (gross disproportionality test considers harm to society and whether sentence shocks the sense of justice)
State v. Williams, 893 So.2d 7 (La. 2004) (wide discretion afforded trial courts in sentencing within statutory limits)
State v. Thompson, 842 So.2d 330 (La. 2003) (same: appellate restraint absent manifest abuse of discretion)
State v. Bell, 377 So.2d 275 (La. 1979) (pre‑sentence investigation is an aid, not a defendant's right)