State v. Ross, 142 So. 3d 327

Defendant Byron Ross was charged with armed robbery with a firearm and attempted second-degree murder; count for attempted first-degree murder was severed.
Defendant underwent multiple competency and sanity hearings; he pled not guilty and insanity at times, but ultimately was found guilty by a jury.
Trial court sentenced Ross to 99 years hard labor for armed robbery, 5 years for firearm use, and 50 years for attempted second-degree murder, to be served consecutively.
Victim Renouff testified to the robbery, gun malfunctions, and the threat at close range; photographic lineup and trial identification supported the conviction.
Defense presented psychiatric testimony diagnosing schizophrenia and history of abuse; gainstjury found Ross could distinguish right from wrong at the offense time.
The court concluded sentences were within statutory ranges, addressed excessiveness, and noted potential errors patent requiring remand for commitment-date corrections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessiveness of the armed robbery sentence	Ross argues sentences are unconstitutionally excessive given mental illness history.	Ross contends medical history warrants substantial mitigation.	Not excessive; within ranges; trial court did not abuse discretion.
Consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing	State argues consecutive terms properly reflect severity.	Ross contends should be concurrent due to mental illness and related factors.	Issue not preserved for review; bare review of excessiveness applied; still affirmed concurrent/separate as imposed.
Errors patent and commitment date corrections	State acknowledges potential discrepancies in dates.	Ross contends error patent and advisory deficiencies affected judgment.	Remanded for commitment date correction; other issues deemed harmless or within discretion.

State v. Horne, 88 So.3d 569 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2012) (factors for reviewing sentence excessiveness)
State v. Falkins, 880 So.2d 903 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2004) (maximum sentences not automatically excessive)
State v. Pearson, 975 So.2d 646 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing)
State v. Lobato, 603 So.2d 739 (La.1992) (disproportionality analysis in review of sentences)