State v. Modisette, 207 So. 3d 1108

Gary R. Modisette pled guilty (May 11, 2015) to four counts of indecent behavior with juveniles and two counts of molestation in docket no. 88020 (acts 2013) and additional counts in docket no. 88237 (acts 1995–1997). Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The trial court reviewed a presentence investigation report, victim and family statements, and Modisette’s social/criminal history at sentencing (Sept. 28, 2015).
For the 2013 offense (docket 88020) the court imposed 25 years (maximum) with no parole, probation, or suspension; defendant’s motion to reconsider was denied.
Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the 25-year sentence in docket 88020 was excessive and (2) the 25-year sentences in docket 88237 were illegal because they exceeded the statutory maximums in effect when those crimes were committed.
The state conceded that the sentences for the 1995–1997 offenses exceeded the statutory maximums then in effect; the court also noted an error patent that the trial court failed to state the sentence was at hard labor (harmless).
Court disposition: convictions affirmed; sentence in 88020 affirmed; all sentences in 88237 vacated and remanded for resentencing under the penalties in effect at the time of the offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 25-year sentence in docket 88020 (2013 offense) was excessive	State: sentence within statutory range and justified by defendant’s history and plea benefit	Modisette: sentence is unconstitutionally harsh given age, lack of prior felonies, veteran status, caregiving duties, substance issues, and remorse	Affirmed: trial court complied with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1; sentence not grossly disproportionate and within discretion (max allowed)
Whether sentences for 1995–1997 offenses (docket 88237) were illegal/ex post facto	State: conceded the sentences exceed earlier statutory maxima	Modisette: challenged as exceeding penalties in effect at commission	Vacated and remanded: sentencing must follow laws in effect when offenses were committed; 25-year terms exceeded prior maxima

State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La. 1983) (trial court must adequately consider La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 factors)
State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049 (La. 1981) (factors to consider at sentencing include personal history, criminal record, seriousness, recidivism, rehabilitation potential)
State v. Quiambao, 833 So.2d 1103 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2002) (trial court need not assign particular weight to each factor)
State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La. 1982) (adequate factual basis in record obviates remand despite imperfect compliance)
State v. Bonanno, 384 So.2d 355 (La. 1980) (excessive-sentence standard: grossly out of proportion or purposeless pain and suffering)
State v. Square, 433 So.2d 104 (La. 1983) (broad trial court discretion in sentencing within statutory limits)
State v. Black, 669 So.2d 667 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1996) (maximum sentence can be appropriate where plea offense understates true conduct)
State v. Free, 86 So.3d 29 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2012) (appellate review focuses on abuse of discretion, not whether a different sentence might be preferable)
State v. Foster, 194 So.3d 674 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2016) (failure to state hard labor at sentencing can be harmless where statute mandates hard labor)
State v. Sugasti, 820 So.2d 518 (La. 2002) (defendant must be sentenced under the law in effect at the time of the offense)
State v. Moore, 847 So.2d 97 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2003) (imposing harsher sentences than those in effect at time of offense violates ex post facto clauses)