State v. Wing, 246 So. 3d 711

Defendant Damon Allen Wing (age 19) confessed in handwriting to two burglaries of the Blanchard Athletic Club concession stand on April 14–15, 2016; physical evidence corroborated the confession.
First burglary: broken window, consumed sports drink, items disturbed; second burglary (same location later that night): plastic covering broken and safe severely damaged but not opened.
Wing was tried by a six-person jury, convicted on two counts of simple burglary, and immediately set for sentencing.
At sentencing the trial court imposed two consecutive eight-year hard labor terms (within the 12-year statutory maximum) and identified one aggravating and one mitigating factor, but the articulated reasons were inconsistent and unsupported by the record.
Wing moved to reconsider, arguing sentences were excessive and consecutive sentences lacked required justification; the trial court denied the motion. Wing appealed only the sentencing issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentences are excessive in length	State: sentence within statutory limits and supported by conviction	Wing: eight years each is excessive given facts (minor takings, age, no victims present)	Convictions affirmed; sentences vacated for inadequate factual sentencing basis and remanded for resentencing
Whether consecutive sentences were properly ordered	State: trial court may exercise discretion to impose consecutive terms	Wing: burglaries were same act/transaction or part of common plan and court failed to articulate reasons for consecutive terms	Court found trial record insufficient to show the required consideration/justification for consecutive sentences and remanded
Whether trial court complied with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 sentencing requirements	State: trial court recited some factors and reached discretionary sentencing	Wing: court misstated an aggravating factor and failed to consider personal history, prior record, rehabilitation potential, PSI, or factual bases	Court held the record does not show adequate consideration of 894.1 factors; resentencing required

State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La. 1983) (trial court must show consideration of sentencing guidelines)
State v. Fontenot, 166 So.3d 1215 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2015) (adequate factual basis can excuse strict compliance with art. 894.1)
State v. Boehm, 217 So.3d 596 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2017) (sentencing discretion and review for abuse)
State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (grossly disproportionate sentence standard)
State v. Weaver, 805 So.2d 166 (La. 2002) (sentence shocks justice standard)
State v. Mitchell, 869 So.2d 276 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2004) (consecutive sentences from single course of conduct require particular justification)
State v. Nelson, 25 So.3d 905 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2009) (factors to consider when imposing consecutive sentences)
State v. Green, 225 So.3d 1033 (La. 2017) (concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing principles)