State v. RichardState v. Richard
Pаul Quint Richard was charged with the crime of armed robbery, a violation of
On October 20, 1982, while armed with a pistol, defendant entered a Little General Store in St. Landry Parish and robbed Gwen White, the night cashier, of approximately $40.00 at gun point.
On appeal, defendant contends that the sentence imposed by the trial judge violatеs the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Defendant also contends that the sentence violates the Louisiana Constitution’s prohibition against excessive punishment. Defendant further cоntends that the court failed to comply with the statutory sentencing criteria mandated by La.C.Cr.P. Art. 894.1.
Under both our federal and state constitutions, the imposition of punishment which is deemed cruel or unusual is prohibited. U.S. Const. 8th Amendment; La. Const.1974, Art. 1 § 20. The Louisiana Constitution specifically prohibits “... cru
At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge stated that he had refixed sentencing to give defendant additional time to submit mitigating evidence to thе court, and that he had considered the material submitted by counsel for defendant in addition to the рre-sentence investigation report. He then permitted counsel for defendant the opportunity to produce additional mitigating evidence. Counsel for defendant submitted no additional evidence but relied on oral argument to the court.
Defendant was sentenced to 18 years at hard lаbor. The maximum sentence for armed robbery is 99 years; the minimum sentence is five years. Thus, the law provides a wide range of sentences for the crime of armed robbery.
Defendant contends that the record reveals a lack of aggravating circumstances and the presence of mitigating circumstances, in particular, his youth and the fact that he has no prior criminal record. On this basis, defеndant urges that the imposition of a sentence of 18 years, which is substantially above the minimum mandated by the legislature, is unconstitutionally excessive.
In particularizing the sentence to the defendant, the trial judge considered the seriousness of the crime, noting that defendant’s conduct involved a serious threat to human life by use of a firearm pointed at the victim. Although defendant correctly points out that, by definition, all armed robberies require the use of force while armed with a dangerous weapоn, some instrumentalities are more life threatening than others.
Thе judge need not articulate every aggravating and mitigating circumstance, but the record must adequately reflect that he considered the guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. Art. 894.1 in particularizing the sentence to the defendant. State v. Ray,
We cannot conclude from this record that the sentence impоsed constituted excessive punishment prohibited by La. Const.1974, Art. 1 § 20 and U.S. Const. 8th Amendment. Defendant’s argument that his conduct constitutes the least serious armed robbery imaginable is without merit. Armed robbery is a crime “fraught with danger” to the victim and to others who may be present and it is strongly condemned by our legislature. State v. Douglas,
For the above and foregoing reasons, the defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Defendant was 18 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. Although the trial judge noted defendant’s lack of a prior criminal record, the record does reflect that defendant had a record of delinquency.