State v. Blanchard11/12/2003
tal, had reached an agreement where she would not have to pay her bills until she received restitution from defendant. Her testimony was not contradicted. Further, defendant cites no jurisprudence which requires that expenses must be pre-paid or lost wages cannot be awarded, and no jurisprudence could be located.
We find defendant's allegation that the trial court erred in imposing restitution of $8,192.44 to be without merit.
In his fifth allegation of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider mitigating factors in violation of La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 and in denying his motion to reconsider sentence.
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 La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1. The trial judge is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating circumstance so long as the record reflects that he adequately considered the guidelines of the article. State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688, 698 (La.1983). The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions. Where the record clearly shows an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed, remand is unnecessary even where there has not been full compliance with LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 894.1. State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475, 478 (La. 1982). The important elements which should be considered are the defendant's personal history (age, family ties, marital status, health, employment record), prior criminal record, seriousness of offense and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049, 1051 (La. 1981). There is no requirement that specific matters be given any particular weight at sentencing. State v. Jones, 33,111 (La. App. 2d Cir. 3/1/00), 754 So.2d 392, 394, writ denied, 00-1467 (La. 2/2/01), 783 So.2d 385.
In the instant case, although the trial judge did not specifically state that he considered mitigating factors, he did state that he considered the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 along with all of the evidence, the arguments of counsel, the victim impact statement, the testimony of the witnesses at the sentencing hearing, and the PSI, among other things. The trial judge explained at length the reasons for sentencing. Further, the record shows that the trial judge adequately considered the guidelines of the article, and that there was an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed.
We find no merit to this allegation of error.
We have reviewed the record for errors patent, according to La. C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1990), and find that the transcript does not reflect that the trial judge adequately advised defendant of the two-year prescriptive period for seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Accordingly, we remand this case and order the trial judge to send written notice to the defendant of the prescriptive period, along with a notice of when the period begins to run, within ten days of the rendering of this opinion, and then to file written proof in the record that the defendant received the notice. See, State v. Esteen, 99-662, (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/15/02), 821 So.2d 60, 78, writ denied, 02-1540 (La. 12/13/02), 831 So.2d 983.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED; CASE REMANDED
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|