50 So. 3d 249
La. Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendant Kenneth K. Prejean was convicted of aggravated burglary after entering Ms. Miller's home, brandishing a knife, stealing cash, and cutting the phone line.
- He was sentenced to twenty years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension.
- Prejean filed a motion to reconsider; after a contradictory hearing, the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal, Prejean argued the sentence was excessive and that Art. 894.1 factors were not properly considered.
- The record showed eight prior felony convictions; the trial court referenced the pre-sentence investigation and the Department of Corrections’ recommendation.
- The appellate court later identified two patent sentencing-errors: parole eligibility and notice under Art. 930.8, and amended/remanded accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessiveness of a twenty-year sentence | Prejean contends the sentence is excessive given the offense and offender. | Prejean argues the court abused its discretion by imposing a disproportionate sentence. | Sentence within statutory range and not excessive; no abuse of discretion. |
| Consideration of Art. 894.1 grounds | Argument should be reviewed under Art. 894.1 grounds for reconsideration. | Motion failed to specify Art. 894.1 grounds, so review limited to excessiveness. | Issue not reviewable on appeal due to lack of specific Art. 894.1 grounds. |
| Disparity with co-defendants | Disparity in sentences among co-defendants shows lack of individualized sentencing. | Disparities are permissible; only meaningful if no reasonable basis exists. | Trial court properly individualized sentence; disparity supported by record. |
| Patently erroneous sentencing provisions | Question whether parole eligibility and notice were properly stated. | Not explicitly argued, but issues exist regarding parole and notices. | Amend sentence to remove denial of parole; correct Art. 930.8 notice required and remand with instructions. |
| Remand and corrective instructions | Court should ensure proper notice and minute entries. | Corrections necessary to ensure compliance with statute and procedure. | Remand with instructions to delete parole denial in minutes and to provide proper 930.8 notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Guzman, 769 So.2d 1158 (La. 2000) (excessive sentencing review requires gross disproportionality or lack of penal purpose)
- State v. Barling, 779 So.2d 1035 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2001) (sentence review focuses on individualized punishment within statutory scheme)
- State v. Smith, 846 So.2d 786 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2003) (court may consider disparity but must individualize sentence)
- State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993) (broad discretion to impose within statutory limits)
- State v. Taylor, 838 So.2d 729 (La. 2003) (disparities among co-defendants can be considered in sentencing)
- State v. Quimby, 419 So.2d 951 (La. 1982) (disparities may be considered when there is no reasonable basis in the record)
- State v. Day, 414 So.2d 349 (La. 1982) (personalized sentencing requires independent case merits)