STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin LEE.
No. 02-KA-529.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
October 29, 2002.
831 So.2d 395
Panel composed of Judges EDWARD A. DUFRESNE, JR., SOL GOTHARD and WALTER J. ROTHSCHILD.
Prentice L. White, Baton Rouge, LA.
WALTER J. ROTHSCHILD, Judge.
On July 10, 2000, the defendant, Kevin Lee, was charged by bill of indictment with distribution of cocaine, a violation of
Defense counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence on March 22, 2002, and the defendant filed a pro se Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence on March 26, 2002. On April 2, 2002, defense counsel filed an Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence. After a hearing on April 10, 2002, the defendants Motions for Reconsideration of Sentence were denied. The defendant filed a Motion for Appeal on April 11, 2002, which was granted by the trial court.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court violated his Eighth Amendment right against excessive punishment when it sentenced him to serve a term of 20 years at hard labor, because this was a non-violent offense and he was a good candidate for rehabilitation. He further argues that the trial court should not have denied his Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence, because the record reflects that the trial court failed to consider relevant mitigating factors prior to sentencing, such as his age and the nature of the offense, and the trial court failed to articulate on the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis for
In the present case, when the defendant withdrew his previous plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty as charged, he signed and initialed a “waiver of constitutional rights and plea of guilty” form in conjunction with the plea. Furthermore, the colloquy between the trial judge and the defendant before the plea indicates with certainty that the defendant knew that his plea of guilty would result in a sentence of 20 years, with no multiple offender bill, and that the charges in case number 01-221 and all pending misdemeanors and other cases would be dismissed.
The defendant cites State v. Hayes, 97-1526 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/25/99), 739 So.2d 301, writ denied, 99-2136 (La.6/16/00), 764 So.2d 955 to support his position that his sentence is constitutionally excessive. He also cites State v. Nelson, 98-2354 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/25/99), 741 So.2d 877, 882-883, writ denied, 99-2769 (La.3/31/00), 759 So.2d 67, to support his position that the trial court erred by not giving reasons for sentence pursuant to
The record reveals that the defendant‘s sentence was imposed in conformity with a plea agreement which was set forth in the record at the time of the plea. Accordingly, the defendant is precluded from raising a claim of excessiveness of sentence on appeal, and the trial court correctly denied the defendant‘s Motion to Reconsider Sentence. See also State v. Stevenson, 00-1296 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/30/01), 778 So.2d 1165; and State v. Andino, 01-820 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/15/02), 807 So.2d 944.
ERROR PATENT DISCUSSION
The record was reviewed for errors patent, according to
Although the defendant argues in his brief that the trial court incorrectly informed him that he had three, rather than two, years from the date his sentence became final in which to file an application for post-conviction relief, the record reflects otherwise. In the Waiver of Constitutional Rights and Plea of Guilty form, the defendant initialed that he understood that, pursuant to
AFFIRMED.