State v. Pegues

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Pegues

641 So. 2d 1080, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 2261, 1994 WL 460700

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 17, 1994

DocketNos. 26133-KA, 26134-KA

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 641 So. 2d 1080 (State v. Pegues) 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. Pegues, 641 So. 2d 1080, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 2261, 1994 WL 460700 (La. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinions

liBROWN, Judge.

In June 1993, defendant, Michael Pegues, pled guilty to three separate forgery charges. In return for his guilty pleas, the state dismissed two other forgery charges and agreed to concurrent sentences. On October 14, 1993, Pegues, who was 32 years old, received three six year concurrent hard labor terms.

After the trial court denied his motion to reconsider, Pegues appealed, claiming that the sentences were -excessive and that the trial court failed to comply with the sentencing guidelines. All three charges were consolidated on appeal. Finding that the trial court applied the guidelines and articulated the sentencing considerations and further finding no constitutional excessiveness in the sentences imposed, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

These charges arose when defendant forged his mother’s signature to separate checks on January 3, May 9 and May 22, 1993. The checks were cashed at three different businesses. On each count, defendant was exposed to sentences of ten years at hard labor. LSA-R.S. 14:72. As a fourth felony offender, he faced an enhanced penalty of not less than twenty years. LSA-R.S. 15:529.1. Although less than the maximum permitted under the statute, the sentence imposed on each count was the maximum allowed by the guidelines. The record reflects that the trial court specifically considered and complied with the Felony Sentencing Guidelines.

When defendant pled guilty, he was a fourth felony offender and on probation. Defendant’s prior criminal history related to Rsimilar crimes of issuing forged and worthless checks. Moreover, defendant was on probation for forgery when two of the present charges were committed. Thus, prior efforts at rehabilitation were unsuccessful. After reviewing the record, the circumstances of the offense and the considerations articulated by the trial judge, we find the sentences imposed were clearly not excessive. State v. Winzer, 465 So.2d 817 (La.App. 2d Cir.1985); State v. Davis, 571 So.2d 210 (La.App. 3d Cir.1990); State v. Binion, 511 So.2d 43 (La.App. 3d Cir.1987).

Defendant’s assignments of error lack merit. For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s sentences are affirmed.

Affirmed.

LINDSAY, J., concurs in the result.

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

liBROWN, Judge.

In June 1993, defendant, Michael Pegues, pled guilty to three separate forgery charges. In return for his guilty pleas, the state dismissed two other forgery charges and agreed to concurrent sentences. On October 14, 1993, Pegues, who was 32 years old, received three six year concurrent hard labor terms.

After the trial court denied his motion to reconsider, Pegues appealed, claiming that the sentences were -excessive and that the trial court failed to comply with the sentencing guidelines. All three charges were consolidated on appeal. Finding that the trial court applied the guidelines and articulated the sentencing considerations and further finding no constitutional excessiveness in the sentences imposed, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

These charges arose when defendant forged his mother’s signature to separate checks on January 3, May 9 and May 22, 1993. The checks were cashed at three different businesses. On each count, defendant was exposed to sentences of ten years at hard labor. LSA-R.S. 14:72. As a fourth felony offender, he faced an enhanced penalty of not less than twenty years. LSA-R.S. 15:529.1. Although less than the maximum permitted under the statute, the sentence imposed on each count was the maximum allowed by the guidelines. The record reflects that the trial court specifically considered and complied with the Felony Sentencing Guidelines.

When defendant pled guilty, he was a fourth felony offender and on probation. Defendant’s prior criminal history related to Rsimilar crimes of issuing forged and worthless checks. Moreover, defendant was on probation for forgery when two of the present charges were committed. Thus, prior efforts at rehabilitation were unsuccessful. After reviewing the record, the circumstances of the offense and the considerations articulated by the trial judge, we find the sentences imposed were clearly not excessive. State v. Winzer, 465 So.2d 817 (La.App. 2d Cir.1985); State v. Davis, 571 So.2d 210 (La.App. 3d Cir.1990); State v. Binion, 511 So.2d 43 (La.App. 3d Cir.1987).

Defendant’s assignments of error lack merit. For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s sentences are affirmed.

Affirmed.

LINDSAY, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 So. 2d 1080, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 2261, 1994 WL 460700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pegues-lactapp-1994.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack