State v. Douglas

• Decision Date: 13 March 1991
• Docket Number: No. C,C
• Citation: 576 So.2d 1102
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Earl DOUGLAS, Defendant-Appellant. r 90-655. 576 So.2d 1102
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 1102

576 So.2d 1102

STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Earl DOUGLAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. Cr 90-655.

576 So.2d 1102

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 13, 1991.

Louis L. Vogt, Indigent Defender Bd., Vidalia, for defendant-appellant.

John F. Johnson, Dist. Atty., Vidalia, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FORET, LaBORDE and KNOLL, JJ.

KNOLL, Judge.

Defendant, Willie Earl Douglas, pleaded guilty as charged by bill of information to one count of aggravated burglary, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:60, and two counts of simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling, violations of LSA-R.S. 14:62.2. The sentencing court ordered defendant to serve 30 years at hard labor on the aggravated burglary conviction, and 12 years on each count of simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling, to run concurrently with each other and with the 30 year aggravated burglary sentence. The sentencing court also ordered defendant to pay court costs and make restitution as a condition of parole.

On appeal, defendant contends the sentencing court failed to comply with LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 894.1, and imposed constitutionally excessive sentences.

FACTS

According to the pre-sentence investigation report, on May 6, 1989, defendant entered the residence of Haywood Whitley in Vidalia, Louisiana, and burglarized the home. Six days later on May 12, 1989, two more Vidalia residences were burglarized. Upon investigation, the Vidalia Police Department recovered numerous items from defendant including two guns, jewelry, a Bearcat scanner, and a videocassette recorder (VCR) that were taken from one of the Vidalia residences. Several items were not recovered including one gun, $500 in coins and cash, and one $20 gold coin necklace.

SENTENCE REVIEW

In State v. Freeman, 444 So.2d 243, 247 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 447 So.2d 1076 (La.1984), our brethren of the First Circuit succinctly outlined the relevant jurisprudence:

"Article 1, sec. 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits the imposition of excessive sentences. A sentence may be excessive even though it falls within the statutory limits. A sentence is excessive when it is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the offense, or when it makes no measureable contribution to the acceptable goals of punishment and it is nothing more than the needless and purposeless imposition of pain and suffering. Moreover, maximum sentences are appropriately imposed only for the most serious violation of the described offense, and for the ... [worst] kind of offender.

Under art. 894.1, the trial judge should consider three basic factors before imposing a prison sentence: (1) that there is an undue risk that the defendant will commit another crime during the period of suspension or probation, (2) that the defendant is in need of services of a custodial environment provided most effectively by a commitment to an institution, and (3) that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the crime. The trial judge should also consider and accord some weight, though he need not state them all for the record, other factors such as the defendant's prior criminal record, the seriousness of the offense, the defendant's personal history and his potential for rehabilitation. Finally, the trial judge must state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis supporting his sentencing choice." [Citations omitted.]

In the case sub judice, the record evidence shows that the sentencing court considered the following facts before imposing sentence: Defendant, 25 years of age, pleaded guilty as charged to one count...