State v. WagleyState v. Wagley
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Caraway
From charges contained in two bills of information, Timmy Lee Wagley (“Wagley“) pled guilty to second degree battery and two counts of theft over $500.1 For each count of conviction, Wagley was sentenced to concurrent terms of two years and six months at hard labor. After the trial court denied Wagley‘s timely motion for reconsideration of sentence, he appealed his conviction and sentence. Finding no merit to his claims, we affirm.
Facts
The facts giving rise to the subject charges are as follows. On August 31, 2000, Wagley committed a battery upon his wife by beating her with his fist and causing her bodily injury. Thereafter, on or about June 12, 2001, Wagley took scaffolding from a construction site and an air compressor, saw and nail gun from an individual‘s private storage trailer.
DISCUSSION
Guilty Plea
On appeal, Wagley first contends that the second degree battery plea should be vacated because there is no factual basis on the record to show that the victim received serious bodily injury. On no other grounds does Wagley complain that the plea was involuntary.
We find no merit to this claim. When a guilty plea is otherwise voluntary, there is no necessity to ascertain a factual basis for the plea unless the accused protests his innocence or for some other reason the trial court is put on notice that there is a need for such an inquiry. Only in that event does due process require a judicial finding of significant factual basis for the defendant‘s plea. State v. Linear, 600 So.2d 113 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992); State v. Orozco, 609 So.2d 1043 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1992); State v. Powell, 584 So.2d 1252 (La.App. 2d Cir.1991). See also, North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).
Regarding the charges of second degree battery, the record discloses the following restatement of facts by the state: “[O]n or about August 31, 2000, Mr. Wagley committed a battery upon his wife ...
Excessive Sentence
Wagley also urges that in sentencing him to concurrent two and one-half-year hard labor sentences on each offense, the trial court failed to adequately comply with the provisions of
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 court 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 trial court has wide discretion to sentence within the statutory limits. Absent a showing of manifest abuse of that discretion, we will not set aside a sentence as excessive. State v. Square, 433 So.2d 104 (La.1983); State v. Washington, 29,478 (La.App.2d Cir.04/02/97), 691 So.2d 345.
Specifically, Wagley complains that the trial court‘s sole reliance on the presentence investigation report (“PSI“) failed to meet the requirements of
In Walker, supra, the sentencing judge stated only that he had reviewed the PSI and the information contained therein prior to sentencing Walker. The Louisiana Supreme Court found such a statement to be conclusory and not in compliance with
Nor do we find the imposed sentences to be excessive. Specifically, Wagley urges that the trial court should have suspended the sentences.2 However, a suspended sentence is not mandated simply because a defendant is a first felony offender. State v. Woodman, 28,004 (La. App.2d Cir.01/24/96), 666 So.2d 1255, writ denied, 96-0489 (La.05/03/96), 672 So.2d 696.
For the crime of second degree battery, Wagley faced a maximum sentence of five years at hard labor and a $2,000 fine.
For the three charges, Wagley faced a possible twenty-five-year sentencing exposure and fines of $5,000. With the concurrent terms imposed, Wagley instead faces only a two and one-half-year term in prison. We cannot find these sentences to be excessive. Despite his first felony status, the record before us shows that Wagley‘s disposition toward violence escalated to felony level upon the commission of the present offense upon his wife. Additionally, as the result of the plea agreement, a subsequent resisting arrest charge was dismissed. Moreover, prior to the resolution of these charges, and almost a year later, Wagley persisted in criminal behavior when he took the personal property of two other individuals. In the plea agreement, an original charge of simple burglary was reduced to theft. Considering the obvious benefit that Wagley received from the plea agreements and the imposition of concurrent sentences, his continued propensity toward criminal activity and the harm done to the victims, we cannot say that the imposed sentences are disproportionate to the severity of the offenses nor shock the sense of justice.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Wagley‘s convictions and sentences are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.