State v. MorrisonState v. Morrison
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- James L. Cannella, Walter J. Rothschild, James C. Gulotta
Defendant, Jeffery A. Morrison, appeals from his conviction of armed robbery, his sentence and enhancement for committing the offense with a firearm, of ten years plus five years imprisonment both at hard labor and without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence, to run consecutively. For the reasons which follow, we affirm and remand.
On January 6, 2000, shortly before midnight, Willie Porter (Porter), the manager of a Popeye‘s Restaurant, located on Belle Chase Highway, and his two employees, the Defendant herein and Ahmad Landix (Landix), were closing the store for the night. As they exited the store, a masked man appeared and put a gun to the side of the Defendant‘s head and ordered the Defendant and Porter back into the store. The gunman left Landix outside the store and Landix left the scene with a friend, Richard Davis, who was in the parking lot. The gunman ordered Porter to open the safe and give him the money that was in it. When the Defendant tried to get away, the gunman tried to slam his head against the counter. The gunman escaped with about $700. Porter called the police. No suspects were developed on the night of the robbery.
Thereafter, on January 21, 2000, the Defendant, Landix and Davis were called to the police station for questioning. During the interviews, Landix told the officers that earlier on the day of the robbery, the Defendant had told him that the store was going to be robbed. The deputies determined that the gunman was a young man named Jamal Kali (Kali), a good friend of the Defendant‘s, who was residing with him. The officers concluded that the Defendant had helped plan the robbery, was a part of it and that he shared in part of the stolen money.
At the conclusion of the interviews, the Defendant and Davis were arrested and Landix was released. Kali was later arrested. Eventually, on February 16, 2000, the Defendant and Kali were charged by bill of information with armed robbery of Porter, in violation of
The Defendant and Kali were tried separately. Trial was commenced against the Defendant on May 11, 2000. At the beginning of trial, the State filed a notice to invoke the firearm enhancement of sentence provisions of
On appeal the Defendant only assigns one error and requests review of the record for any errors patent on the face of the record.
In his only assigned error, the Defendant argues that the imposed sentence is excessive, the trial court did not comply with the requirements of
The State argues that the sentence is clearly within the trial court‘s broad sentencing
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
In sentencing a defendant, the trial court should state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor.
The Defendant contends that the record is void of any rationale for the sentence imposed. He argues that there was no real violence involved in the case. The asserted violence and threats were against the Defendant and were part of the plan to convince Porter to hand over the money. Porter was not threatened with the weapon. Further, the Defendant argues that while he may have helped plan the robbery, he did not personally possess a weapon nor did he commit or threaten violence to anyone. In mitigation, the Defendant also points out his youth, 18 years of age at the time of the offense, and no prior convictions.
As the Defendant asserts, the trial court did not specify any reasons for imposing the minimum sentence. However, the trial court was familiar with the underlying facts of the instant offense, as well as the entire record.
The facts establish that the Defendant was an employee at the restaurant which was robbed. He used his position of trust to assist in the orchestration of this crime. The crime was committed by the co-perpetrator with a dangerous weapon, a firearm. The danger of the entire situation, where a person is apparently being threatened at gunpoint, is obvious. Based on the foregoing, we find no abuse of the trial court‘s vast sentencing discretion in sentencing the Defendant to the statutory minimum sentence and further find ample support in the record for the imposition of the ten year imprisonment at hard labor sentence for the armed robbery and the five year imprisonment at hard labor additional firearm enhancement, to run consecutively. The Defendant‘s assigned error lacks merit.
ERROR PATENT REVIEW
The Defendant requests that the Court review the record for any errors patent on its face.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the conviction, sentence and enhancement of sentence are affirmed and the case is remanded to the trial court to provide proof in the record within 10 days of the Defendant‘s receipt of notice of
CONVICTION, SENTENCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE AFFIRMED, REMANDED.