96 2262 La.App. 1 Cir. 9/23/97, State v. Gedric

• Decision Date: 23 September 1997
• Citation: 700 So.2d 564
• Parties: 96 2262 La.App. 1 Cir
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 564

700 So.2d 564

96 2262 La.App. 1 Cir. 9/23/97

STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth GEDRIC.

No. 96 KA 2262.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana First Circuit.

Sept. 23, 1997.

Doug Moreau, District Attorney, Brent Stockstill, Asst. District Attorney, Baton Rouge, for State.

Bertha M. Hillman, Thibodaux, for Defendant/Appellant Kenneth Gedric.

Before LeBLANC and FITZSIMMONS, JJ., and CHIASSON ¹, J. Pro Tem.

[96 2262 La.App. 1 Cir. 2] LeBLANC, Judge.

Kenneth Gedric was charged by bill of information with theft in excess of $1,000.00, a violation of La.R.S. 14:67(B)(1). He pled guilty, and the court sentenced him to serve a term of ten years imprisonment at hard labor, with credit for time served, consecutive to any other sentence he might be serving. Defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied. He has appealed; however, the record contains no assignments of error. The assignment of error is taken from defendant's brief. ²

The facts of the offense are described in the arrest warrant and in police reports attached to the presentence investigation report. In July and August 1995, defendant was employed as a customer service representative for a U-Haul company. As part of his duties, he prepared bank deposit slips and took the deposits to the bank. On nine occasions, defendant deposited only the checks and failed to deposit the cash. This action resulted in the theft of over $4,400.00 in cash. Defendant altered the receipts he received from the bank to make it appear he had deposited the cash.

Defendant argues his sentence is excessive because he received the maximum sentence. He claims the court failed to consider he had expressed remorse and had attempted to pay restitution. He maintains his conduct did not cause or threaten serious harm, and he claims his imprisonment is causing a hardship on him and his dependents.

The penalty for theft of an item valued at $500.00 or more is imprisonment for not more than ten years, with or without hard labor, a fine of not more than $3,000.00, or both. La.R.S. 14:67(B)(1). Thus, defendant's sentence of ten years imprisonment at hard labor complies with the statutory requirements.

[96 2262 La.App. 1 Cir. 3] The trial judge has wide discretion, although not unbridled, in the imposition of a sentence within statutory limits. See State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 767 (La.1979). Article I, section 20, of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits the imposition of excessive punishment. A sentence will be determined to be excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the crime, or is nothing more than the needless imposition of pain and suffering. The determination turns upon the punishment and the crime in light of the harm to society and whether or not the penalty is so disproportionate that it shocks our sense of justice. State v. Waguespack, 589 So.2d 1079, 1086 (La.App. 1st Cir.1991), writ denied, 596 So.2d 209 (1992).

Given compliance with the sentencing criteria of La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, the sentence will not be set aside in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion. Article 894.1 (as amended by 1995 La. Acts No. 942, § 1) requires the trial court to weigh both aggravating and mitigating circumstances in imposing sentence. See State v. Waguespack, 589 So.2d at 1086. The court is required to state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis for the sentence. La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1(C).

Maximum sentences may be imposed only for the most serious offenses and the worst offenders, or when the offender poses an unusual risk to the public safety due to his past conduct of repeated criminality. In imposing a maximum sentence, a court may consider the benefits of a reduced penalty exposure which the defendant obtained as the result of a plea bargain. State v. Price, 95-0997, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 1st Cir. 6/28/96), 677 So.2d 705, 709.

Before imposing sentence, the court reviewed the contents of...