Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Reeves

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit

March 4, 2015

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Appellee,
v.
RANDALL LAMAR REEVES, JR., Appellant

Appealed from the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Bossier, Louisiana. Trial Court No. 191,411. Honorable Michael O. Craig, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARD J. MARQUET, Counsel for Appellant.

J. SCHUYLER MARVIN, District Attorney; ALEXANDRA AIELLO, JOHN M. LAWRENCE, R. LANE PITTARD, Assistant District Attorneys, Counsel for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, CARAWAY and PITMAN, JJ.

OPINION

Page 659

[49,641 La.App. 2 Cir. 1] WILLIAMS, J.

The defendant, Randall Lamar Reeves, Jr., was charged by bill of information with two counts of distribution of marijuana, in violation of LSA-R.S. 40:966. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to one count of distribution of marijuana and the second count was dismissed. The defendant was sentenced to serve eight years of imprisonment at hard labor, to run consecutively with any other sentence. The district court denied defendant's motion to reconsider the sentence. The defendant appeals his sentence as excessive. For the following reasons, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

The record shows that in June 2011, defendant sold $5.00 worth of marijuana to an undercover police officer. Defendant was arrested and charged with distribution of marijuana. Subsequently, the district court sentenced defendant to serve eight years at hard labor, to run consecutively with any other sentence. The defendant's motion to reconsider sentence was denied and this appeal followed.

The defendant contends the district court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. Defendant argues that given the relatively small amount of marijuana involved in this case, he should have received a more lenient sentence.

An appellate court utilizes a two-pronged test in reviewing a sentence for excessiveness. First, the record must show that the trial court took cognizance of the criteria set forth in LSA-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 [49,641 La.App. 2 Cir. 2] article. State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La. 1983); State v. Lathan, 41,855 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2/28/07), 953 So.2d 890, writ denied, 2007-0805 (La. 3/28/08), 978 So.2d 297. The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of Article 894.1,

Page 660

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 Article 894.1. State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La. 1982); State v. Swayzer, 43,350 (La.App. 2d Cir. 8/13/08), 989 So.2d 267. 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 the offense, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049 (La. 1981); State v. Ates, 43,327 (La.App. 2d Cir. 8/13/08), 989 So.2d 259, writ denied, 2008-2341 (La. 5/15/09), 8 So.3d 581. There is no ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.