State v. Miller, 114 So. 3d 670

Defendant Christopher B. Miller pled guilty to one count of simple burglary of a vehicle; seven counts existed originally, with six dismissed by the State in exchange for the plea.
The State dismissed counts 2–7 and a misdemeanor marijuana charge, and did not file a habitual offender enhancement.
The court informed Miller it would order a Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSI) because the plea was open and not tied to a specific sentence.
Miller was sentenced on November 19, 2012 to the maximum twelve years at hard labor, to run concurrently with a separate probation-revocation sentence.
Miller filed a motion to reconsider and an appeal; the issues focus on excessiveness of the sentence and the enforceability of an open-ended plea.
The trial court noted Miller’s adult criminal history and limited juvenile history, and imposed the maximum sentence despite mitigation arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Miller may appeal despite open-ended plea	State argues waiver precludes appeal of non-jurisdictional errors.	Miller argues open-ended plea allows appellate review of sentence.	Open-ended plea allows appellate review; not precluded from appealing.
Whether 12-year maximum sentence for simple burglary of a vehicle is excessive	State contends maximum is appropriate given criminal history and plea benefits.	Miller contends the sentence is excessive given youth, mitigating factors, and comparable cases.	Not excessive; within discretion given history, plea benefits, and offenses.
Whether trial court erred by not considering La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1 mitigating factors (not raised on motion to reconsider)	State argues the issue is not reviewable absent proper motion grounds.	Miller asserts mitigating factors were not properly considered.	Claim limited to bare excessiveness; no Art. 894.1 factor review on appeal.

State v. Pickens, 741 So.2d 696 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1999) (open-ended pleas permit appellate review of sentence)
State v. Simmons, 390 So.2d 504 (La.1980) (principles on waiver of appeals in pleas)
State v. Curtis, 880 So.2d 112 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2004) (open-ended plea not automatically precluded from review)
State v. Colar, 893 So.2d 152 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2005) (open-ended plea allows appellate review of sentences)
State v. Sinegal, 97 So.3d 649 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2012) (review standard for excessiveness and preservation limits)
State v. Prejean, 50 So.3d 249 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2010) (preservation requirements for reviewing excessiveness)
State v. Compton, 66 So.3d 619 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2011) (procedural limitations on appellate review)
State v. Jones, 63 So.3d 330 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2011) (preservation and review of excessiveness claims)
State v. Hearold, 777 So.2d 1269 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2001) (maximum sentences appropriate for serious offenses)
State v. Burns, 828 So.2d 147 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2002) (twelve-year maximum not excessive given circumstances)
State v. Hilton, 764 So.2d 1027 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2000) (maximum sentences appropriate for the worst offenders)
State v. Chaney, 537 So.2d 313 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1988) (principles regarding maximum sentences)