State v. Lobo, 106 So. 3d 1187

defendant Cesar Lobo was convicted of sexual battery under La. R.S. 14:43.1 and sentenced to eight years without probation, parole, or suspension.
This Court affirmed the conviction but remanded for ruling on defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence.
Trial court denied the motion; a nunc pro tunc order later set the eight-year term; defendant timely appeals challenging excessiveness.
Factual background shows the victim A.R. sleeping in her apartment when Lobo allegedly touched and/or penetrated, with testimony of non-consent and lasting impact on A.R., and Lobo’s statements to police.
Statutory and constitutional review of the sentence proceeds under La. Cr.P. art. 894.1 and the Eighth Amendment, noting the maximum for sex battery is ten years and eight years falls within the limit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessiveness of eight-year sentence	State argues the sentence within statutory limits and supported by record	Lobo contends the court failed to articulate reasons and the sentence is excessive given offender status	No abuse of discretion; affirmed the sentence
Art. 894.1 articulation sufficiency	State asserts substantial factual basis and compliance with Article 894.1	Lobo asserts lack of explicit articulation of each factor	Art. 894.1 compliance satisfied; any deficiency harmless

State v. Sanders, 734 So.2d 1276 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1999) (art. 894.1 articulation not requiring every factor)
State v. Evans, 30 So.3d 958 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (remand not required when facts support sentence)
State v. Horne, 88 So.3d 562 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2012) (excessiveness review; broad sentencing discretion)
State v. Williams, 969 So.2d 1251 (La. 2007) (no substitution of judgment for trial court on punishment)
State v. Lobato, 603 So.2d 739 (La.1992) (framework for reviewing punishment against harm and societal interest)
State v. Pearson, 975 So.2d 646 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard in excessiveness review)