th sentences imposed upon similarly situated defendants, and some with less severe factual circumstances, even when the particular counts are considered separately or combined. See, e.g., State v. Fuller, 980 So.2d 45 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2008) (defendant sentenced as second felony offender to 190 years plus consecutive 5 years for armed robbery of a novelty store and the clerk with gun pointed at victim's head without injury); State v. Williams, 85 So.3d 759 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (defendant sentenced as first offender to consecutive terms of 49 years at hard labor for attempted second degree murder and 29 years at hard labor for aggravated burglary during which the victim was shot in the face in front of the eight-year-old child); State v. Toliver, 205 So.3d 948 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2016) (defendant sentenced as a second-felony offender to 60 years in prison plus a consecutive 5 years for use of firearm to be served without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence); State v. Mathieu, 283 So.3d 1041 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2019) (defendant sentenced to 60 years in prison plus a consecutive 5 year firearm enhancement after pleading guilty to avoid multiple bill for armed robbery with a firearm at Dollar General store during which a clerk was shot in the leg); State v. Debrow, 277 So.3d 897 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2019) (defendant sentenced as first offender to 65 years in prison for attempted second degree murder committed during armed robbery where the victim was shot three times); accord State v. Wesley, 161 So.3d 1039 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2015) (defendant sentenced as third felony offender to 65 total years for attempted armed robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon); State v. Glenn, 162 So.3d 525 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2015) (defendant sentenced as a second offender to 55 years in prison plus consecutive 5 years for firearm use for armed robbery); State v. Daugherty, 175 So.3d 1164 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2015) (defendant convicted of attempted second degree murder and h
Thus, "[t]he relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate." State v. Mathieu, 2018-964, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/19), 283 So.3d 1041, 1045.
Thus, "[t]he relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate." State v. Mathieu, 2018-964, p. 4 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/6/19), 283 So.3d 1041, 1045 (quoting State v. Barling, 2000-1241, 00-1591, p. 12 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035, 1042). Here, Mr. McDonough was sentenced to thirty years without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence for violating La. R.S. 14:42.1, which, 46at the time of the sexual assault, provided that "[w]hoever commits the crime of second degree rape shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than five nor more than forty years.
Therefore, "[t]he relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate." State v. Mathieu, 2018-964, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/19), 283 So.3d 1041, 1045 (citing State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957). We will review this matter to determine whether the sentences imposed are grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime committed and whether the trial court abused its vast discretion in imposing Defendant's sentences.
Thus, "[t]he relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate." State v. Mathieu, 2018-964, p. 4 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/6/19), 283 So.3d 1041, 1045
Thus, "[t]he relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate." State v. Mathieu , 18-964, p. 4 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/6/19), 283 So.3d 1041, 1045 (citing State v. Cook , 95-2784, p. 3 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957, 959 ). In the case sub judice , after reviewing the record and applicable law, we find that based on the egregious nature of the underlying crime and the steps taken by Defendant in an attempt to thwart the NOPD's investigation, the district court did not abuse its broad sentencing discretion in imposing the maximum sentence for obstruction of justice.
Thus, "[t]he relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate." State v. Mathieu , 2018-964, p. 4 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/6/19), 283 So.3d 1041, 1045 (citing State v. Cook , 95-2784 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957 ). In reviewing a claim that a sentence is excessive, an appellate court generally must determine whether the trial judge has adequately complied with statutory guidelines in La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 and whether the sentence is warranted under the facts established by the record.
Thus, "[t]he relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate." State v. Mathieu , 2018-964, p. 4 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/6/19), 283 So.3d 1041, 1045 (citingState v. Cook , 95-2784 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957 ). In the case sub judice, after reviewing the record and applicable law, we find that based on the egregious nature of the underlying crime and the multiple steps taken by Degruy in an attempt to cover up and thwart the NOPD's investigation, the district court did not abuse its broad sentencing discretion in imposing maximum sentences for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice convictions.