State v. Sumrall

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Sumrall

914 So. 2d 607, 2005 La. App. LEXIS 2247, 2005 WL 2757481

Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided October 26, 2005·No. No. 40,303-KA·Published

Opinion

DREW, J.

| íAron Michael Sumrall seeks review of his three-year, hard labor sentence for second degree battery. La. R.S. 14:34.1. A motion for reconsideration of sentence was denied. We affirm.

The defendant was originally charged with aggravated battery, but pled guilty to second degree battery.¹ The record shows that the defendant and his then wife were involved in a domestic dispute when he shoved her and attempted to snatch the children, who were hysterical. Mrs. Sum-rail urgently requested her father, Tim Turner, to come to the scene. Without provocation, the defendant repeatedly struck Mr. Turner in the head with a stick, resulting in a head wound. Mr. Turner was also in considerable pain from a rib injury.

When, as here, a defendant’s motion for reconsideration urges merely that the sentence is excessive, he is relegated only to a claim of constitutional excessiveness. State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La.1993); State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), 707 So.2d 164. Constitutional review turns upon whether the sentence is illegal, grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense or shocking to the sense of justice. State v. Lobato, 603 So.2d 739 (La.1992); State v. White, 37,815 (La.App. 2d Cir.12/17/03), 862 So.2d 1123.

The trial court considered the defendant’s criminal history, his ex-wife’s position that he had been abusive throughout the course of the | ^marriage, and the fact that he has children. The court stated that it reviewed the defendant’s pre-sen-tence investigation report and letters from the defendant and his grandmother. The court noted that the defendant benefited substantially from pleading guilty to the lesser charge of second degree battery. We note that he benefited also by the other two sentences being suspended. This bully cut his exposure in half with the plea. The three years is well deserved.

On this record, we do not find constitutional error. The sentence is lawful. It is not needless or purposeless. It is neither grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense of conviction, nor is it shocking to our sense of justice. There is no showing of an abuse of the district court’s discretion in the imposition of this sentence.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

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

DREW, J.

| íAron Michael Sumrall seeks review of his three-year, hard labor sentence for second degree battery. La. R.S. 14:34.1. A motion for reconsideration of sentence was denied. We affirm.

The defendant was originally charged with aggravated battery, but pled guilty to second degree battery.¹ The record shows that the defendant and his then wife were involved in a domestic dispute when he shoved her and attempted to snatch the children, who were hysterical. Mrs. Sum-rail urgently requested her father, Tim Turner, to come to the scene. Without provocation, the defendant repeatedly struck Mr. Turner in the head with a stick, resulting in a head wound. Mr. Turner was also in considerable pain from a rib injury.

When, as here, a defendant’s motion for reconsideration urges merely that the sentence is excessive, he is relegated only to a claim of constitutional excessiveness. State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La.1993); State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), 707 So.2d 164. Constitutional review turns upon whether the sentence is illegal, grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense or shocking to the sense of justice. State v. Lobato, 603 So.2d 739 (La.1992); State v. White, 37,815 (La.App. 2d Cir.12/17/03), 862 So.2d 1123.

The trial court considered the defendant’s criminal history, his ex-wife’s position that he had been abusive throughout the course of the | ^marriage, and the fact that he has children. The court stated that it reviewed the defendant’s pre-sen-tence investigation report and letters from the defendant and his grandmother. The court noted that the defendant benefited substantially from pleading guilty to the lesser charge of second degree battery. We note that he benefited also by the other two sentences being suspended. This bully cut his exposure in half with the plea. The three years is well deserved.

On this record, we do not find constitutional error. The sentence is lawful. It is not needless or purposeless. It is neither grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense of conviction, nor is it shocking to our sense of justice. There is no showing of an abuse of the district court’s discretion in the imposition of this sentence.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

State v. Sumrall, 914 So. 2d 607, 2005 La. App. LEXIS 2247, 2005 WL 2757481 (La. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

914 So. 2d 607 (State v. Sumrall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related