 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Blanchard11/12/2003
ences of imprisonment shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that some or all of them be served concurrently.
Since the two convictions arose from a single course of conduct, there is a presumption in favor of concurrent sentences under Article 883. Nonetheless, a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive sentences on the basis of factors such as the offender's past criminal acts, the violent nature of the charged offenses, or the risk that the defendant may pose to the safety of the community. State v. Walker, 00-3200 (La. 10/12/01), 799 So.2d 461; State v. Aleman, 01-743 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/15/02), 809 So.2d 1056, 1070, writ denied, 02-481 (La. 3/14/03), 839 So.2d 26. If the trial court elects to impose consecutive sentences for crimes arising from a single course of conduct, it must articulate the reasons it feels the sentence is necessary. State v. Aleman, 809 So.2d at 1070. Although the imposition of consecutive sentences requires particular justification when the crimes arise from a single course of conduct, consecutive sentences are not necessarily excessive. State v. Jackson, 96-661 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/9/97), 694 So.2d 440, 451, writs denied, 97-1050 (La.10/13/97), 703 So.2d 609 and 97-1255 (La.10/13/97), 703 So.2d 612. The failure to articulate specific reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence also does not require a remand if the record provides an adequate factual basis to support a consecutive sentence. State v. Bradley, 02-1130 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/11/03), 844 So.2d 115, 118.
In the instant case, the trial court failed to give any reasons justifying the consecutive nature of the sentence. However, the record provides adequate facts to support a consecutive sentence. As was stated in the discussion under his first allegation of error, defendant has an extensive criminal record, including numerous alcohol and driving related offenses. The facts surrounding the offense show that defendant put the lives of Ms. Poussard and her unborn child at risk, and that Ms. Poussard was permanently disabled as a result of the accident. The facts also suggest that defendant is a danger to himself and to society, that he has not taken advantage of treatment options available to him previously, and that he has not learned from his mistakes. The need for rehabilitation must be balanced against these other factors. Additionally, treatment options will be available to defendant after he serves his sentence. We find that the trial court did not err in ordering the DWI, third offense, sentence to run consecutively to the first degree vehicular negligent injuring sentence.
In his third allegation of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in ordering home incarceration for the period of time remaining on his sentence. He claims that, under the ordered sentence, he would have to remain on home incarceration for more than two years in violation of La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.2(G). The State responds that the trial court correctly ordered home incarceration in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.2(K).
Defendant was convicted of DWI, third offense, a violation of La. R.S. 14:98 and first degree vehicular negligent injuring, a violation of La. R.S. 14:39.2. The trial court sentenced him to four years of imprisonment at hard labor on Count 1 (DWI-third offense), with all but 30 days of the sentence suspended, and the 30 days were ordered to be served without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence and a fine of $2,000.00 was also imposed.
The trial court sentenced defendant to five years of imprisonment at hard labor on Count 2 (first degree vehicular negligent injuring), with the sentence on Count 1 to run consecutively
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|