State v. WinzerState v. Winzer
The defendant, Harold Winzer, age 33, was charged by bill of information with forgery in violation of
The record reflects that on June 8, 1983, the defendant forged a check in the amount of $267.83 drawn on the United Mercantile Bank in Shreveport, made payable to the order of Harold Welch and signed Daniel Coleman, and cashed the check аt the Piggly Wiggly store in Mansfield.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 1 AND 2
By these assignments, the defendant contends that the trial court failed to follow the sentencing guidelines set forth in
It is well settled that the sentencing judge is given wide discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory limits and such a sеntence should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion by the sentencing judge. State v. Square, 433 So.2d 104 (La.1983); State v. Brooks, 431 So.2d 865 (La.App. 2d Cir.1983). The sentencing guidelines of
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in not considering the mitigating factors in favor of the defendant in arriving at the sentence. The defendant contends that the court failed to review the defendant‘s family stability, his dependants, his potential for rehabilitation, and his employment record. However, the defendant does not point to any mitigating factor weighing in his fаvor, and the pre-sentence investigation report referred to by the trial court shows that the facts relating to each of the mentioned factors would weigh against the defendant.
At the defendant‘s sentencing hearing, the trial сourt filed written reasons for the sentence imposed. The court stated that the defendant‘s presentence report reflected that the defendant had a long felony criminal record dating back to 1973 at which time the dеfendant was sentenced to serve five years for a conviction of armed robbery. The court noted that the defendant was also sentenced to serve one year at hard labor in 1980 and that the defendant thereforе was not eligible for a probated or suspended sentence. The court found nothing in the history of the defendant to indicate that the defendant had any intention from refraining from criminal activities. Therefore, the court found that сorrectional treatment was in order and that society needed to be protected. The defendant was then sentenced to the maximum possible term of imprisonment of ten years at hard labor.
We find that the trial court‘s аrticulation of the sentencing considerations was adequate and that the facts of defendant‘s present crime and prior criminal history support the imposition of the maximum possible term of imprisonment. According to defendant‘s presentence investigation report, the defendant is a third felony offender.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3
By this assignment, the defendant contends that the sentence imposеd was unconstitutionally excessive. A sentence is unconstitutionally excessive in violation of
The defendant in the present case is a repeat offender. The defendant is thirty-three years оf age and has only sporadic periods of gainful employment. The defendant has demonstrated an inability to rеfrain from criminal conduct. He benefited substantially from the plea bargain in which the state dismissed another charge and agreed not to file an habitual defender bill. A plea bargain which brings about substantial benefits to the defendant is a legitimate consideration in sentencing. State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La.1982). Under these circumstances the imposition of a ten year sentence is not out of proportion to the severity of the offense or a needless and purposeless impоsition of pain and suffering. This assignment of error is without merit.
DECREE
Finding no merit to defendant‘s assignments of error, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.