State v. Nelson

38 Citing cases

  1. State v. McDaniel

    622 So. 2d 852 (La. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    State v. Soco, 441 So.2d 719 (La. 1983), appeal after remand, 508 So.2d 915 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1987); State v. Nelson, 449 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1984). The trial court's failure to repeat reasons for imposing sentence on remand for resentencing does not require a second remand where the record contains a sufficient showing of compliance with sentencing guidelines and a sufficient proof of the defendant's prior criminal convictions.

  2. State v. Cargo

    593 So. 2d 811 (La. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 3 times

    C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 sets forth sentencing guidelines to be followed so that the trial judge can tailor the sentence to the particular defendant and his particular crime; but it is not necessary that the judge recite all the factors in Article 894.1 as long as there is evidence in the record that the judge considered those factors and tailored the sentence to fit the defendant and his particular crime. State v. Welch, 550 So.2d 265 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1989); State v. Nelson, 449 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1984). The trial judge in the present case fully articulated his reasons for sentencing defendant as he did, and the reasons given fully support the sentence of five years imprisonment.

  3. State v. James

    573 So. 2d 1277 (La. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 4 times

    It is not necessary for the trial judge to give a full recitation of the factors listed in article 894.1 as long as there is evidence in the record the factors have been considered and the sentence tailored to fit the defendant and the crime. State v. Nelson, 449 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1984). However, even if there is non-compliance with article 894.1, a remand for resentencing is unnecessary where the sentence is not apparently severe or where the record otherwise illumines the sentencing decision.

  4. State v. Collins

    557 So. 2d 269 (La. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 7 times
    In State v. Collins, 557 So.2d 269 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1990), the defendant was convicted of four counts of armed robbery in addition to one count of attempt armed robbery and two counts of aggravated battery.

    In State v. Nelson, 449 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1984), the defendant held a gun to the head of one of the victims and threatened to shoot two victims if they followed him. When the two perpetrators fled, the victims chased them and were shot at by the defendant.

  5. State v. Woolridge

    555 So. 2d 1385 (La. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 3 times

    894.1, as long as there is evidence in the record that the factors have been considered, and that the sentence has been tailored to fit the defendant and his particular crime. State v. Nelson, 449 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1984). If there is adequate compliance with La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, the reviewing court must determine whether the sentence is too severe considering the particular defendant and the circumstances of his case.

  6. State v. Delaneuville

    545 So. 2d 659 (La. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 7 times
    In State v. Delaneuville, 545 So.2d 659 (La. App. 5 Cir.), writ denied 551 So.2d 1335 (La. 1989), the appellate court found the defendant's five-year sentence, with three years suspended and five years of active probation, was not excessive.

    Whether a particular sentence is excessive is measured by reference to two factors: the nature of the crime in relation to the background of the defendant, and the sentencing considerations set forth in LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 894.1. State v. Nelson, 449 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1984). Delaneuville's first argument on appeal is that the district judge did not consider the recommendations of the presentence report in imposing punishment.

  7. State v. James

    545 So. 2d 560 (La. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 11 times
    In State v. James, 545 So.2d 560 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1989), writ denied, 551 So.2d 618 (La. 1989), a defendant with three prior felony convictions was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to ninety-nine years.

    Defendant's criminal record consisted of convictions for criminal trespass, possession of state property, soliciting for prostitution and theft. In State v. Nelson, 449 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1984), this court upheld the ninety-nine year sentence of a defendant who robbed an auto parts store at gunpoint. The defendant held a gun to the head of one of the victims and threatened to shoot both of them if they followed him.

  8. State v. Cunningham

    525 So. 2d 44 (La. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 1 times

    Second, the reviewing court must then determine whether the sentence imposed is too severe given the circumstances of the case and the background of defendant." State v. Nelson, 449 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1984); La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 does not require the trial judge to articulate every aggravating and mitigating circumstance, however, the record must reflect that the factors have been considered and that the sentence was tailored to fit the particular defendant and his particular crime. State v. Cox, 474 So.2d 523 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1985).

  9. State v. Brown

    513 So. 2d 425 (La. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that illegal use of a weapon is one of the predicate offenses for manslaughter where there is no intent to cause death or great bodily harm

    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. Nelson, 449 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1984). State v. Hammonds, 434 So.2d 452 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1983), writ den., 439 So.2d 1074 (1983).

  10. State v. Hernandez

    513 So. 2d 312 (La. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 26 times
    In State v. Hernandez, 513 So.2d 312 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 516 So.2d 130 (La. 1987), the defendant was charged with possession of 256.6 grams of cocaine.

    He argues that the sentence is too severe, and that the trial court did not individualize the sentence as required under LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 894.1. In State v. Nelson, 449 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1984), this court pointed out that 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 LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 894.1 in determining the sentence. Second, the reviewing court must then determine whether the sentence imposed is too severe given the circumstances of the case and the background of the defendant.