| j This criminal appeal arises from the 26th Judicial District Court, Parish of Webster, State of Louisiana. The defendant, Andrew DeBerry, pled guilty to attempted manslaughter, illegal рossession of stolen things valued at greater than $1,500.00, and aggravated flight from an officer. He was subsequently sentenced for the convictions as follows: 19½ years at
Facts
Andrew DeBerry was charged by bill of information -with attempted first degree murder of a poliсe officer, illegal possession of stolen things valued-at $1,500.00 or more, aggravated flight from officer where human life is- endangered, and resisting a police officer with force or violence. Pursuant to the terms of the .plea agreement with the state, DeBerry agreed to plead guilty to attempted manslaughter (a viоlation of La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:31), illegal possession of stolen things valued over $1,500.00 (a violation of La. R.S. 14:69(B)(1)), and aggravated flight from a police officer (a violation of La. R.S. 14:108.1). The state nol prossed DeBer-ry’s charge of resisting an officer. The plea deal further provided that DeBerry would receive concurrent sentences after a presentence investigation (“PSI”) was conducted, and the state agreed not to charge him as a habitual | ^offender. DeBerry was advised of his rights under Boykin v. Alabama,
Subsequently, DeBerry’s sentencing hearing, was conducted. ■ The trial court noted that in Texas he had a significant juvenile record, had been convicted of felony sexual assault as an adult, and hаd several other charges pending, including burglary of an inhabitation. The trial court discussed DeBerry’s social, educational and work history. The defendant claimed tо suffer from a substance abuse problem. The trial court specifically noted its consideration of DeBerry’s youthfulness and the applicable sentencing fаctors set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The trial court explained that the defendant had stolen the vehicle used during the chase, a Ford F-350 truck, from a man in Oklahoma, and during the pursuit hе dangerously was weaving in and out of traffic on 1-20. Given DeBerry’s criminal history, the significant benefit he received by pleading guilty, and the fact that his actions needlessly endаngered human life, the trial.court sentenced him for the following convictions: 19½ years at hard labor for attempted manslaughter; 5 years at hard labor for illegal рossession of stolen things; |aand, 1½ years at hard labor for aggravated flight from an officer. The sentences were all to be served concurrently.
In response, DeBerry filed a motion to reconsider his sentences arguing that his 19½ — year sentence for attempted manslaughter was excessive because the victim was not injured. He also claimed that the trial court placed insufficient weight on his youthful age. The motion was denied. DeBerry now appeals.
DISCUSSION
DeBerry raises two assignments of error, both related to his sentence. He contends that his 19]/¿-year hard labor sentence, imposed for his attempted man
An appellate court utilizеs a two-pronged test in reviewing a sentence for excessiveness. First, the record must show that the trial court took cognizance of the criteria set forth in Lа. 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 оf the article. State v. Smith,
Second, the court must determine whether the sentence is constitutionally excessive. A sentence violates La. Const. Art. I, § 20, if it is grоssly out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense or nothing more than, a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. Dorthey,
As a generаl rule, maximum or near maximum sentences are reserved for the worst offenders and the worst offenses. State v. Woods, 41,420 (La.App.2d Cir.11/01/06),
The offense of attempted manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment for up tо 20
Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing DeBerry to 19⅛ years at hard labor for his attempted manslaughter conviction, regardless of his age. The rеcord makes clear that the trial court specifically considered the applicable sentencing factors set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and DeBerry’s youthful age. The trial court noted that DeBerry had an extensive criminal history,’ including a felony sexual assault conviction abid several other pending charges (including burglary of аn inhabited | (¡building) in Texas. The trial court also pointed out that the facts of the case, including the risk ■ of death or great bodily injury caused by the defendant’s -actions, justified the sentence imposed. DeBerry benefitted greatly by accepting the state’s plea offer and pleading guilty to a reduced charge of attemptеd manslaughter.
The sentence imposed is not constitutionally excessive. Although DeBerry received ah almost maximum sentence for his attempted manslaughter conviction, he received a substantial benefit by accepting the plea agreement, because otherwise he faced a sentence of uр to 50 years’ imprisonment for his attempted first degree murder charge. Given his criminal history and the risk of danger DeBerry-caused by his actions, the sentence imposed is nоt grossly disproportionate to the crirhe and does not shock the sense of justice, regardless of DeBerry’s age.
Conclusion
Considering the foregoing, the convictions and sentences of Andrew DeBerry are affirmed.
affirmed;