The defendant, Jeremy Allister McDavis, was charged by bill of information with armed robbery with the use of a firearm, a violation of La. R.S, 14:64 and 14:64.3 (count 1); aggravated flight from an officer where human life is endangered, a violation of La. RS. 14:108.1 (count 2); and possession of heroin (less than 2 grams), a violation of La. R.S. 40:966(C) (count 3). He pled not guilty and, following a jury trial, was found guilty as charged on all counts. For the armed robbery conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant to ninety-nine years imprisonment at hard labor; for the additional penalty of armed robbery with a firearm, the trial court sentenced the defendant to five years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, to be served consecutively to the 99-year sentence. For the aggravated flight from an officer where human life is endangered conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant to five years imprisonment at hard labor, with that sentence to be served consecutively to the sentences in count l. For the possession of heroin conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant to four years imprisonment at hard labor, with that sentence to be served concurrently with the other sentences. The defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence. Following a hearing on the matter, the motion was denied. The defendant now appeals, designating two assignments of error. We affirm the convictions and sentences.
FACTS
On December 9, 2020, at about 6:00 p.m., UPS driver Brant Fekete was delivering packages to an apartment complex in Denham Springs. Joshua Salinas, a seasonal worker for UPS, was riding with Mr. Fekete. Mr. Salinas went to an upstairs apartment to deliver a package, while Mr. Fekete stayed by his truck. A man, later identified as the defendant, armed with a handgun with an extended magazine and wearing a ski mask, approached Mr. Fekete and asked him if he had packages. The defendant told Mr. Fekete to open the door on the back of the UPS truck. Mr. Fekete complied. There were about twenty packages in the truck. The defendant told Mr. Fekete to help him bring the packages to his car, which was parked next to the UPS truck. Mr. Fekete and the defendant moved all of the packages to the defendants car, a black BMW. Some packages were placed inside the car and some were placed in the trunk. The defendant then got in his car and slowly drove away.
Mr. Salinas observed the defendant approach Mr. Fekete with a gun, and called 911. By the time the defendant had taken all the packages and began driving off, deputies with the Livingston Parish Sheriffs Office arrived at the scene. Mr. Fekete and Mr. Salinas pointed out the defendants car.
Deputy Cody Jarreau chased the defendant onto Louisiana Highway 16, then on to Sullivan Street, and then to Old River Road. The defendant drove down Old River Road until it turned into 4-H Club Road, then crashed. The defendant was transported to the hospital. During the chase, the defendant reached speeds of over 100 m.p.h. The defendant also ran a stop sign, ran a red light, crossed over the double yellow lines on the road, and drove into the opposite lane of oncoming traffic. In the vehicle search incident to the defendants arrest, a bag of a brown powder substance that was suspected to be and later identified as heroin was found on the defendants passenger seat. UPS packages and the defendants gun were found in the trunk. Deputy Jarreau found the ski mask worn by the defendant inside of the car.
The defendant testified at trial. He stated he had sold drugs to Mr. Fekete in the past. On the day of the incident, Mr. Fekete had contacted the defendant and told him to meet him at the apartment complex. When the defendant arrived, Mr. Fekete asked for heroin. As payment for the heroin, Mr. Fekete gave the defendant the UPS packages. The defendant stated he did not use his gun during his interaction with Mr. Fekete, and he was not wearing a ski mask. He stated Mr. Fekete saw the gun in the trunk while they were loading the packages into the car.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 1 and 2
In his assignments of error, the defendant argues, respectively, the trial court erred in denying the motion to reconsider sentence, and the maximum consecutive sentences totaling 109 years are unconstitutionally excessive.
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 20, of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of cruel or excessive punishment. Although a sentence falls within statutory limits, it may be excessive. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 767 (La. 1979). A sentence is considered constitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense or is nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. A sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the harm done to society, it shocks the sense of justice. State v. Livous, 2018-0016 (La, App. 1st Cir. 9/24/18), 259 So.3d 1036, 1044, writ denied, 2018-1788 (La. 4/15/19), 267 So.3d 1130. The trial court has great discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory limits, and such a sentence will not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Scott, 2017-0209 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/15/17), 228 So.3d 207, 21L writ denied, 2017-1743 (La. 8/31/18), 251 So.3d410.
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 894.1 sets forth the factors for the trial court to consider when imposing sentence. While the entire checklist of La. Code of Crim. P. art. 894.1 need not be recited, the record must reflect the trial court adequately considered the criteria. State v. Brown, 2002-2231 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/9/03), 849 So.2d 566, 569.
The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of La. Code Crim. P. art. 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions. Where the record clearly shows an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed, remand is unnecessary even where there has not been full compliance with La. Code Crim. P. art. 894.1. State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475, 478 (La. 1982); Scott, 228 So.3d at 211. The trial judge should review the defendants personal history, his prior criminal record, the seriousness of the offense, the likelihood that he will commit another crime, and his potential for rehabilitation through correctional services other than confinement. State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049, 1051-52 (La. 1981); State v. Spikes, 2017-0087 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/15/17), 228 So.3d 201, 204-05. On appellate review of a sentence, the relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate. State v. Thomas, 98-1144 (La. 10/9/98), 719 So.2d 49, 50 (per curiam).
For his convictions, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence of 104 years for the armed robbery with the use of a firearm. His five-year sentence for aggravated flight from an officer where human life is endangered was ordered to run consecutively to the 104-year sentence, for a total of 109 years. The defendant argues the trial court did not consider that he did not point the gun at Mr. Fekete, and that he never used physical force or violence. Also, according to the defendant, in its reasons for sentencing, the trial court did not state any reasons why two of the sentences were ordered to run consecutively despite all charges arising out of the same transaction or occurrence.
1
In sentencing the defendant, the trial court stated:
I did have a pre-sentence investigation done. Basically, it ended up with a criminal history, running of the criminal history, which both of you, Im sure, know — I didnt know the full extent until I asked that a pre-sentence investigation be done, and it will be part of the record.
Apparently, in 2004, the defendant was arrested for distribution of marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He pled and was given five (5) years DOC. His probation was terminated unsatisfactorily. It was a sentence — it was suspended. It was suspended. Five (5) years suspended. It was terminated unsatisfactorily November the 23rd of 2009.
I see another arrest in 2005 that was refused.
2007, a possession of marijuana, pled guilty, got six (6) months suspended, eight (8) months unsupervised probation.
2007, he was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, illegal possession of stolen things, and aggravated flight from an officer.
He was convicted 2008, received a three (3) year sentence and parole was terminated in January of 2011.
Another arrest in 2009, possession of marijuana. It doesnt show if there was a conviction or not.
In 2010, he was arrested for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was convicted January of 2011, was given a ten (10) years DOC sentence. He received earned compliance credit and was released February 1st, 2020. Now, thats crucial to me. He was released February 1st, 2020.
December the 9th of the very same year, he was arrested for armed robbery, aggravated flight from an officer, possession of schedule I, distribution of schedule I, illegal possession of stolen things, illegal carrying of a weapon, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Okay. I know the state did not go to trial on the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, but they did go to trial on the armed robbery, aggravated flight from an officer, and possession of heroin.
So, his criminal history, including the facts of this particular case — and as I recall the facts of this particular case is that he robbed Brant Fekete with a gun that was loaded with 30 bullets and threatened this man; said, “I should kill you, but youre a good dude, so I guess I wont.” Then after he — to evade apprehension, as Mr. Wall said, flies through Denham Springs. Theres a videotape of it, and I happen to be extremely familiar with the route that he took. I know, on River Road, theres no shoulders. On 4H Club Road, there [are] no shoulders. We saw cars making — trying to get out of the way. And the fact that he went through a red light at Old River — River Road and 190 on a Friday evening at six oclock in December, and the fact that he didnt kill anybody is just Gods grace. And then, of course, the only reason he got apprehended is because he lost control of the car on 4H Club Road and then tossed it - and rolled it. And so, all of those things are extremely important to me.
He has a life, it appears, where he has been in and out of jail; mostly, in jail.
As a general rule, maximum or near maximum sentences are to be reserved for the worst offenders and the worst offenses. State v. James, 2002-2079 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/9/03), 849 So.2d 574, 586. Also, maximum sentences permitted under a statute may be imposed when the offender poses an unusual risk to the public safety due to his past conduct of repeated criminality. State v. Hilton, 99-1239 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/31/00), 764 So.2d 1027, 1037, writ denied, 2000-0958 (La. 3/9/01), 786 So.2d 113. We find the trial court provided ample justification in imposing the maximum sentence on count 1, See State v. Mickey, 604 So.2d 675, 679 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1992), writ denied, 610 So.2d 795 (La. 1993). Further, the record before us clearly establishes the defendant poses a grave risk to public safety. See State v. Thompson, 543 So.2d 1132, 1135 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1989).
Based upon our review of the record, we conclude the facts surrounding the instant offenses justified a combined maximum sentence of 109 years. In its detailed reasons for the sentences it imposed, the trial court clearly found the defendant was the worst type of offender and a risk to public safety. Accordingly, we find that the maximum sentences were warranted. The sentences imposed are not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses and, therefore, are not unconstitutionally excessive. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to reconsider sentence.
These assignments of error are without merit.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. We do not find that the offenses of armed robbery and aggravated flight from an officer where human life is endangered were based on the same act or transaction, or constituted parts of a common scheme or plan. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 883. Each crime was a separate and distinct act, involving different times, places, and potential victims. Moreover, the trial court provided ample justification for running the sentences consecutively.
PENZATO, J.