| jThe defendant, Billy Autry, appeals as excessive his sentence to 20 years at hard labor, with the first two years to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence.
FACTS
On October 12, 2008, the Minden Police Department received information that the defendant was аt a motel in Minden, Louisiana, selling crack cocaine. The officers who responded to the call smelled marijuana coming from the dеfendant’s motel room. When the motel room door was opened, the officers asked the defendant to step outside. At that point, the оfficers saw a marijuana blunt in plain view on a table in the room. The defendant was placed under arrest. The officers found a small contаiner in the defendant’s pocket which he stated contained crack cocaine. The defendant was also carrying $2,500 in cash.
A femalе inside the motel room with the defendant told the police that she and the defendant had been in the room getting high on crack cocaine and that the defendant was her “dope man.” The money was seized and turned over to the district attorney’s office and the 19 rocks of crack cocaine found on the defendant, as well as the marijuana, were placed into evidence.
On November 20, 2008, the defendant was charged by a bill of information with one count of possession of cocaine with intent to ^distribute. On February 23, 2009, the defendant pled guilty to the charge and thе state agreed not to charge the defendant with felony possession of marijuana or to file a multiple offender bill. A presentence investigation report was ordered.
The defendant appeared before the court for sentencing on May 11, 2009. During the sentencing hearing, thе court considered the defendant’s extensive criminal history for drug-related offenses. The defendant had prior convictions in 2005 for *1070 attemptеd possession of cocaine and in 2007 for possession of cocaine. The court also noted that the defendant’s pai’ole аnd probation had been revoked on different occasions because of repetitive offenses. The court considered that the defendant was currently unemployed, had finished the 12th grade in special education, and had one young child who was cared for by the child’s mothеr. The court noted that the defendant never served in the military and does not attend church regularly.
Before sentencing the defendant, the court stated that it had taken into consideration the La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 sentencing factors, the defendant’s family history, prior offenses, and the fact that the dеfendant was considered a third felony offender. The defendant was sentenced to 20 years at hard labor, with the first two years to be served without bеnefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Credit was given for time served. A motion to reconsider the sentence fоr exces-siveness was filed on May 15, | ¾2009, and denied by the trial court on that date. The defendant then appealed the sentence as excessive.
EXCESSIVE SENTENCE
The defendant claims that his sentence is excessive because it is grossly out of proportion with the crime and the defendant would bе better served by being placed in a rehabilitation clinic. The defense further argues that the trial court failed to give adequate considеration to several mitigating factors, including the fact that the defendant is only 29 years old, has a 2-year-old child, was a former special education student, and has an obvious drug problem. Finally, the defense contends that the court should have considered that the defendant has no prior convictions for crimes of violence, and that there is no evidence that he inflicted any physical harm or enduring psychological harm upon any victim, witness, or police officer in the commission of his crimes. This argument is without merit.
The test imposed by the reviewing court in determining the excessiveness of a sentence is two-pronged. First, the record must show that the trial court took cognizance of the criteria set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The trial judge is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating circumstance so long as the record reflects that he adequately considered the guidelines of the article.
State v. Smith,
14The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of La. C. Cr. P. ai*t. 894.1, not rigid or mechanical сompliance with its provisions. The important elements which should be considered are the defendant’s personal history (age, family ties, marital status, health, employment record), prior criminal record, seriousness of offense and the likelihood of rehabilitation.
State v. Jones,
Second, a sentence violates La. Const, art. 1, § 20 if it is grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense or nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering.
State v. Smith,
2001-2574 (La.1/14/03),
The trial judge is given a wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within the statutory limits, and the sentence imposed should not |sbe set aside аs excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of his discretion.
State v. Williams,
2003-3514 (La.12/13/04),
A trial judge is in the best position to сonsider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a particular case, and, therefore, is given broad discretion in sentencing. On review, аn appellate court does not determine whether another sentence may have been more appropriate, but whethеr the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Williams, supra.
In the present case, the defendant’s sentence is not excessive. The sentencing court stated that it considered La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The trial court provided a factual basis for the sentence, including the defendant’s past convictions for drug-related offenses. Within a four-year period, the defendant committed and was prosecuted for three felony drug charges. Furthermore, we do not find that thе sentence imposed is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense nor is it shocking to the sense of justice. Not only did the defendant receive less than the maximum sentence for this offense, but he also received a significant reduction in | (¡potential exposure tо confinement through his plea bargain agreement. 1 The sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in this case.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the conviction and sentence of the defendant, Billy Autry, are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. The maximum sentence of incarceration for this offense is 30 years at hard labor. La. R.S. 40:967.