State v. RossState v. Ross
Initially charged with armed robbery, a violation of
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS REFLECTED BY THE RECORD Event Date As Per Birth of defendant 7/02/83 Bill of Information 7/02/83 Pre Sentence Report 7/02/83 Notice of Custody Offense 7/18/00 Bill of Information and Statement to P.O. for PSI Arrest 7/19/00 Pre Sentence Report Guilty Plea to reduced charge 1/8/01 Transcript/PSI Sentencing 5/3/01 Transcript/Order in record Admitted age as of date of Offense *17* Statement of counsel at Guilty Plea, Record, p. 36 *17* Motion for Reconsideration, Record, p. 45
This defendant was 17 years and sixteen days old on July 18, 2000, when he and two 17 year-old companions1 (Adkinson, being 17 years and 2 days old; and Davis, being 17 years, nine months and eight days old), without authorization entered a home/store operated by the elderly victim, Mrs. D.L. Patterson. Davis, armed with a knife, forced the victim to lie on the floor while Ross and Adkinson helped gain access and kept a lookout. All three entered the premises. Davis threatened to kill the victim, while Ross and Adkinson took $500 in cash plus some cigarettes. After an investigation, one of the three perpetrators was identified. He implicated his co-defendants and surrendered physical evidence. The two younger robbers, Adkinson and Ross, who allegedly never touched the dangerous weapon nor the victim, were both allowed to plead guilty to simple robbery and each received a maximum 7-year sentence. The oldest of the three, Davis, who handled the weapon, was allowed to plead guilty to first degree robbery and received a maximum sentence of 20 years at hard labor without benefits. This court has already affirmed the sentences of Adkinson and Davis. (See footnote 1.)
The test imposed by the reviewing court in determining the excessiveness of a sentence is two-pronged. First, the record must show that the trial judge took cognizance of the criteria set forth in
Whether the sentence imposed is too severe depends on the circumstances of the case and the background of the defendant. A sentence violates
A substantial advantage obtained by means of a plea bargain—e.g., a reduction of the charge where the evidence shows the offender is guilty of the more serious offense originally charged—is a legitimate consideration in sentencing. State v. Smack, 425 So.2d 737 (La.1983); State v. Jackson, 27,056 (La.App.2d Cir.6/21/95), 658 So.2d 722.
Prior to imposing sentence, the district court reviewed a PSI report and considered the facts of the case. The court opined that the plea bargain was generous. In mitigation the court noted that defendant was a first felony offender with no juvenile record. The court noted the instant offense was very anti-social behavior, exhibiting a total disregard for the property and safety of others. The court found, in aggravation, that defendant knew the victim was particularly vulnerable due to her age and that he had caused serious emotional injury to the victim. The court concluded by stating that this was a serious offense, and by noting that defendant received a substantial reduction in his sentencing exposure through his plea bargain.
In fact, Ross was at least a principal to an armed robbery for which he could have been sentenced to as much as 99 years at hard labor without benefits. The offense of conviction does not adequately describe defendant‘s criminal conduct. The sentence imposed here of 7 years at hard labor is lawful and, under the circumstances, neither grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense committed nor shocking to the sense of justice. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing this sentence which is not constitutionally excessive.
Appellate defense counsel urged that defendant should have been given a probationary sentence. The court shall not suspend the sentence of a conviction for a crime of violence as defined in
The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.