from the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the Parish
of Bossier, Louisiana Trial Court No. 194657 Honorable
Jefferson R. Thompson, Judge.
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT By: Peggy J. Sullivan Counsel for
SCHUYLER MARVIN District Attorney JOHN M. LAWRENCE SANTI A.
PARKS Assistant District Attorneys Counsel for Appellee
WILLIAMS, PITMAN, and STONE, JJ.
defendant, Christopher Lee Griffin, was charged by bill of
information with one count of aggravated incest, a violation
of La. R.S. 14:78.1. The defendant pled guilty as charged and
was sentenced to serve 20 years at hard labor with a $25,
000.00 fine. Defendant was subsequently adjudicated a
second-felony offender and sentenced to serve 40 years at
hard labor. On remand after an appeal, the district court
resentenced defendant to serve a term of 40 years at hard
labor, with the sentence to be served without the benefit of
parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Defendant's
motion to reconsider sentence was denied. Defendant appeals
his sentence as excessive. For the following reasons, we
amend the sentence to delete the denial of parole eligibility
and affirm as amended. This matter is remanded to the trial
court with instructions to provide the defendant with written
notice of the sex offender registration requirements.
record shows that the defendant was charged with one count of
aggravated incest of his 14-year-old daughter for acts
occurring in June 2012. Defendant pled guilty as charged. He
was adjudicated a second-felony offender and sentenced to
serve 40 years at hard labor. On appeal, defendant's
conviction and adjudication as a second-felony offender were
affirmed. However, this court remanded for resentencing,
finding that the sentencing judge should have recused himself
because he had worked on the case as an assistant district
attorney. State v. Griffin, 50, 265 (La.App. 2 Cir.
11/18/15), 183 So.3d 585.
remand, another judge of the district court imposed a
sentence of 40 years at hard labor, to be served without the
benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence, and
denied defendant's motion to reconsider sentence. This
defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing an
excessive sentence. Defendant urges that the record does not
support the sentence imposed.
reviewing a claim of excessive sentence, the appellate court
first considers whether the record shows the trial court took
cognizance of the sentencing guidelines in La. C.Cr.P. art.
894.1. State v. Jackson, 51, 011 (La.App. 2 Cir.
1/11/17), 211 So.3d 639; State v. Taylor, 49, 467
(La.App. 2 Cir. 1/14/15), 161 So.3d 963. The trial court is
not required to list every aggravating or mitigating
circumstance so long as the record reflects adequate
consideration of those guidelines. Id.
reviewing court next determines whether the sentence is
constitutionally excessive by considering whether the
sentence is grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of
the offense or nothing more than a purposeless infliction of
pain and suffering. La. Const. art. I, § 20; State
v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993); State v.
Lindsey, 50, 324 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/24/16), 189 So.3d
1104. A sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if,
when the crime and punishment are viewed in light of the harm
done to society, it shocks the sense of justice. Id.
trial court has wide discretion in the imposition of
sentences within the statutory limits and such sentences
should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a
manifest abuse of that discretion. State v.
Williams, 2003-3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So.2d 7;
State v. Washington, 50, 337 (La.App. 2 Cir.
1/13/16), 185 So.3d 852. On review, an appellate court does
not determine whether another sentence may have been more