State v. FisherState v. Fisher
The defendant, Huey P. Fisher, pleadеd guilty as an accessory after the fact to the crimе of armed robbery, a violation of
Defendant allegеs that his sentence violates the prohibition against cruеl, excessive, or unusual punishment in Article 1, § 20 of the
His argument is two-fоld. First, he asserts that the trial judge imposed his sentence of imprisonment with the proviso that it be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, an unauthorized sentence under the penalty clause of
At the outset, we note that the sentence contains no prohibition against parole, probation, and suspension of sentence. The judge merely recorded his recommendation to the parole and correctional authorities. He stated:
“It is recommended by the Court that you not be given benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.
“The Court recognizes thаt it has no authority to request the five years sentence оf Huey P. Fisher be served without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence but the Court wishes to make its feelings known to the State Department of Corrections.”
The defendant cites no authority, nor are we awarе of any, which prohibits a trial judge from making such a recommendation.
The sentence of five-years imprisonment imposed by the court is within the penalty prescribed by
Armed robbery is one of the most serious offenses in a civilized society. It is fraught with dangеr of serious physical harm, even death—not only to the viсtim but also to any person at the scene. See State v. Levi, 259 La. 591, 250 So.2d 751 (1971). The Legislature has recognized the gravity of the offense by authorizing a sentence of imprisonment from five to ninety-nine years, without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. See
In our opinion, a five-year sentence for the crime of being an accessory to armed robbery does no violence to the constitutiоnal standard prohibiting cruel, excessive, or unusual punishment. Hеnce, we conclude that the penalty provision of
For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
DIXON, J., concurs. In the proper case this must review excessiveness.