State v. Mathis

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Mathis

534 So. 2d 994, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 2756, 1988 WL 133745

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 14, 1988

DocketNo. CR88-417

StatusPublished

This text of 534 So. 2d 994 (State v. Mathis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Mathis, 534 So. 2d 994, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 2756, 1988 WL 133745 (La. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

FORET, Judge.

Defendant, Hiram Mathis, 28 years old, was charged by bill of information with simple burglary, a violation of La.R.S. 14:62, and theft over $500, a violation of La.R.S. 14:67. Defendant pleaded not guilty originally but, on November 6, 1987, entered a guilty plea pursuant to a plea bargain. The State recommended that whatever sentence imposed on count two, the theft charge, be made concurrent with the sentence imposed on count one. On January 27, 1988, defendant was sentenced to five years on each count, sentences to run concurrently. Defendant’s two assignments of error deal solely with his sentence.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NO. 1 & 2

Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence and by failing to properly follow the sentencing guidelines required by La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1.

The trial court imposed a sentence well within its discretion and, based on his reasons for sentencing, followed the guidelines of C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 very admirably.

Accordingly, defendant's conviction and sentences are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

KNOLL, J., concurs in the results.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FORET, Judge.

Defendant, Hiram Mathis, 28 years old, was charged by bill of information with simple burglary, a violation of La.R.S. 14:62, and theft over $500, a violation of La.R.S. 14:67. Defendant pleaded not guilty originally but, on November 6, 1987, entered a guilty plea pursuant to a plea bargain. The State recommended that whatever sentence imposed on count two, the theft charge, be made concurrent with the sentence imposed on count one. On January 27, 1988, defendant was sentenced to five years on each count, sentences to run concurrently. Defendant’s two assignments of error deal solely with his sentence.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NO. 1 & 2

Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence and by failing to properly follow the sentencing guidelines required by La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1.

The trial court imposed a sentence well within its discretion and, based on his reasons for sentencing, followed the guidelines of C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 very admirably.

Accordingly, defendant's conviction and sentences are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

KNOLL, J., concurs in the results.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 So. 2d 994, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 2756, 1988 WL 133745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mathis-lactapp-1988.