Pursuant to Article 881.1, this Court has found that defendants who fail to file the proper motion to reconsider sentence are precluded from raising, on appeal, issues regarding their sentences. See, State v. Holmes, 94–907 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/15/95), 653 So.2d 642;State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5th Cir.1993); State v. Carter, 609 So.2d 261 (La.App. 5th Cir.1992); State v. Collins, 606 So.2d 585 (La.App. 5th Cir.1992); State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La.1993). The record in the instant case reveals that, although defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence based on his original conviction, which was heard and denied prior to defendant's re-sentencing pursuant to LSA–R.S. 15:529.
This Court has previously held that pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.1, a defendant who fails to file the proper motion to reconsider sentence in the trial court is precluded from raising sentencing issues on appeal. State v. Williams, 97-970 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/27/98), 708 So.2d 1086; State v. Holmes, 94-907 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/15/95), 653 So.2d 642; State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1993). However, under certain circumstances, we have reviewed sentences for constitutional excessiveness when a defendant has failed to file a motion to reconsider sentence.
In following the provisions of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 881.1, this Court has found that defendants who fail to file the proper motion to reconsider sentence are precluded from raising on appeal issues regarding their sentences. State v. Holmes, 94-907 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/15/95), 653 So.2d 642; State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1993); State v. Carter, 609 So.2d 261 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1992). In the instant case the defendant did not file the required motion to reconsider sentence nor did he object to the sentence at the time of sentencing.
In following the provisions of Article 881.1, this Court has found that defendants who fail to file the proper motion to reconsider sentence are precluded from raising on appeal issues regarding their sentences. State v. Holmes, 94-907 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/15/95), 653 So.2d 642; State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1993); State v. Carter, 609 So.2d 261 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1992). See also, State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993).
In following the provisions of Article 881.1, this Court has found that defendants who fail to file the proper Motion to Reconsider Sentence are precluded from raising on appeal issues regarding their sentences. State v. Holmes, 94-907 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/15/95), 653 So.2d 642; State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1993); State v. Carter, 609 So.2d 261 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1992). See also, State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993), writ denied, 93-2933 (La. 2/11/94), 634 So.2d 373.
We note that under the provisions of La.-C.Cr.P. art. 881.1 (D), defendant has not preserved for review the issue of his excessive sentence. See State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, considering the entire record, including the trial court's articulated reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines, the seriousness of the crime, the surrounding factual circumstances and the defendant's criminal history, the sentence imposed was not an abuse of the discretion afforded the sentencing judge.
Because defendant failed to file a motion to reconsider with respect to the sentence imposed on November 24, 1993, he is precluded under article 881.1 from claiming excessiveness on appeal. State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1993). ADJUDICATION AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER