22 February 2012
we agree with chief judge ulysses g. thibodeaux in his dissent.
[disclosure: we attended high school with mike gordon]
Considering that the trial court and the majority, in an effort to support the imposition of the forty year sentence, cited cases that had lower sentences but more aggravating circumstances, I find the sentence of forty years at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence is a needless infliction of pain and suffering compared to other cases in this jurisdiction and other jurisdictions.
The legislature created a sentencing range for armed robbery of no less than ten years and no more than ninety-nine years—an eighty-nine year spread.
The vast spread was because there are multiple and varying circumstances involved in the crime of armed robbery as noted above, and the trial courts are granted much leeway in which to impose punishment.
For the reasons previously articulated, Defendant’s sentence makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals and is, therefore, constitutionally excessive in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
La. R.S. 14:64
Posted by wst... at 10:22