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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.