State v. RoyState v. Roy
On January 21, 1982, the defendant-appellant, Kenny J. Roy was charged by bill of information with the violation of
It is from this sentence thаt the defendant now appeals and makes the following assignment of error:
That it was reversible errоr for the trial court to sentence the defendant to a term of twelve years at hard labor, which sеntence was excessive. This assignment of error can be broken down into two sub-issues which are first, the failurе to state bases and considerations for this sentence; and second, the excessiveness of thе sentence.
1. FAILURE TO STATE BASES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR SENTENCE
The defendant argues that the trial court failed to include in the record any of the fаctors which it considered in determining that the defendant should be sentenced to twelve years at hard lаbor. The defense counsel also submits that the trial court failed to follow the guidelines in
An extensive pre-sentence investigation was conducted and has been made part of the record. That investigation revealed that the defendant has been involved in the criminal justice system since he was thirteen yeаrs old in Pennsylvania. He received an undesirable discharge from the United States Army and is currently on an outstanding parole warrant from Pennsylvania, where he had been convicted of armed robbery. Additionally, his рarents expressed a desire to terminate their association
The trial judge had taken notice that the defendant‘s plea of guilty was part of a plea bargain arrangement with the Jefferson Parish District Attorney‘s Office whereby an additiоnal charge of receiving stolen things was dismissed. We also take note that the defendant has pled guilty tо two counts of felony theft and is presently awaiting sentencing.
Article 894.1(C) of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Prоcedure states that the judge‘s considerations and bases for the sentence must be included in the reсord. The trial judge‘s statement is brief, but makes mention of the pre-sentence report which was made рart of the record. State v. Johnson, 411 So.2d 439, 441 (La.1982), held in a similar situation that even though by itself the reasoning for the sentence was insufficient, “the record in the case clearly supports the sentencing choice.”
The defendant has an extensive criminal record and the crime itself to which he pled guilty speaks very eloquently for his аpparent total lack of moral fiber. (The business that he burglarized on Christmas Day, 1981, was a church.)
The trial judgе could not include any factors which might have been considered in view of a suspension or reductiоn of sentence because none were made available either by the defense or from thе pre-sentence investigation. The defendant read the report and had no objections saying, “It covers everything.”
2. EXCESSIVE SENTENCE
The defendant pled guilty to simple burglary and was sentenced to twelve years at hard lаbor at the Louisiana Department of Corrections. Twelve years is the maximum penalty for
While all sentences, even those within statutory limitations, are subject to review, the court in State v. Prados, 404 So.2d 925, 926 (La.1981) held that the sentence imposed by the trial court should be affirmed. “[absent] a manifest abuse of his discretion.” The court continued, saying that, “We have held a sentence is excessive if it is grossly out of proportion to the sevеrity of the crime, or if it is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering.” Sеe also State v. Lewis, 414 So.2d 703 (La.1982).
The defendant, Kenny Roy, has exhibited no evidence of intent to reform. The court was left with no alternative but to sentence the defendant to be incarcerated for the maximum term statutorily аllowable.
There has been no abuse of discretion of the trial court in the imposition of this twelve-year sentence as the record clearly reflects the court‘s reasoning. Therefore, this sentence is hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED.