The defendant, Marlon Romaine Carter, was charged by bill of information with possession of a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon by a convicted felon, a violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1.
1
He pled not guilty and, following a jury trial, was found guilty as charged. The State filed a habitual offender bill of information, and the defendant denied the allegations therein. The defendant was adjudicated a third-felony habitual offender, and the trial court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
2
,
3
In a prior appeal, this court affirmed the defendants conviction, habitual offender adjudication, and sentence. State v. Carter, 2018-0078 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/17/18), 2018 WL 6616902, *11 (unpublished), writs denied, 2019-0105, 2019-0246 (La. 4/22/19), 268 So.3d 303, 268 So.3d 299, cert. denied, U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 446, 205 L.Ed.2d 259 (2019).
The defendant filed several motions to correct the illegal sentence.
4
Following a hearing on his final motion, the State withdrew its habitual offender bill of information, and the trial court re-sentenced the defendant to twenty years imprisonment at hard labor.
5
Thereafter, the trial court denied the defendants motion to reconsider sentence. The defendant now appeals, challenging his sentence as excessive. For the following reasons, we affirm the defendants sentence.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts are fully set forth in the prior appeal in this matter. Carter, 2018 WL 6616902 at *1-2. On July 23, 2014, officers with the Baton Rouge Police Department initiated a traffic stop on the defendants bicycle, whereupon the defendant fled from officers. When officers located the defendant, they observed a firearm on the ground near the defendant and subsequently arrested him.
EXCESSIVE SENTENCE
In his sole assignment of error, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. Specifically, the defendant contends that the sentence is excessive in light of the fact that the crime for which he was convicted was non-violent and officers did not observe the gun in his possession.
Citing La. Code Crim. P. art. 881.2(A)(2), the State argues this assignment of error is not reviewable on appeal because the defendant agreed to the twenty-year sentence in lieu of the State proceeding with the habitual offender adjudication. We disagree.
Pursuant to La. Code Crim. P. art. 881.2(A)(2), the defendant may not appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement which was set forth in the record at the time of the plea. See State v. Young, 96-0195 (La. 10/15/96), 680 So.2d 1171, 1175. This provision also applies to a defendant who stipulates to the terms of a habitual offender bill of information in exchange for a sentencing agreement. State v. Jones, 2015-0757 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/9/15), 2015 WL 6951576, *5 (unpublished).
At the hearing on the defendants motion to correct illegal sentence, the State was unable to provide documentation regarding the defendants previous incarceration and release dates to prove that the defendant was a third-felony habitual offender pursuant to La. R.S. 15.529.1(A)(3) (as amended by 2017 La. Acts No. 257, § 1 and 2017 La. Acts No. 282, § 1). The State agreed to withdraw the habitual offender bill of information, with the condition that the trial court agree to sentence the defendant to twenty years imprisonment. The defendant agreed to move forward with sentencing, but specifically stated he was not “plead[ing] to [the sentence].” The trial court confirmed it was “not a plea.”
It is clear from the record that the defendant did not plead guilty at any time, whether to the original bill of information or to the habitual offender bill of information. Rather, the defendant pled not guilty to the instant offense, and a jury thereafter found the defendant guilty as charged. Thus, the defendant did not plead guilty, and the trial court did not impose the sentence in accordance with a plea agreement.
6
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 is within statutory limits, it may violate a defendants constitutional right against excessive punishment and is subject to appellate review. State v. Kimble, 2023-0176 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/21/23), 376 So.3d 869, 874. A sentence is considered excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense or is nothing more than the needless imposition of pain and suffering. Id. A sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the harm done to society, it shocks ones sense of justice. Id. A trial court is given wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within statutory limits, and an appellate court should not set aside the sentence in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. Id.
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 894.1 sets forth factors the trial court must consider before imposing a sentence. Kimble, 376 So.3d at 874. The trial court need not recite the entire checklist of Article 894.1, but the record must reflect that it adequately considered the criteria. Id. In light of the criteria expressed by Article 894.1, an appellate courts review for individual excessiveness should consider the circumstances of the crime and the trial courts stated reasons and factual basis for its sentencing decision. Id. Remand for full compliance with Article 894.1 is unnecessary when a sufficient factual basis for the sentence is shown. Kimble, 376 So.3d at 874.
In the present case, a jury found the defendant guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Whoever commits this offense shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than five years nor more than twenty years without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, and fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars. La. R.S. 14:95.1(B). Thus, the twenty-year sentence imposed by the trial court fell within the statutory sentencing range for a violation of La. R.S. 14:95,1.
After a thorough review of the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the maximum sentence of twenty years. Maximum sentences may be imposed for the most serious offenses and the worst offenders, or when the offender poses an unusual risk to the public safety due to his past conduct of repeated criminality. Kimble, 376 So.3d at 877. Herein, upon officers approaching the defendant to conduct a traffic stop, the defendant immediately fled and attempted to evade officers. The defendant failed to cooperate with police and hindered their ability to efficiently perform their job duties. Further, the defendant was carrying a loaded firearm, which could have discharged at any moment and endangered the lives of the officers and the general public. Finally, the defendant has a lengthy criminal history, which includes prior convictions for crimes of violence, as well as a prior conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance. The defendants behavior and repeated criminality demonstrates a complete disregard for police authority and public safety. See State v. Willis, 2019-1236 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/26/20), 2020 WL 913738, *3 (unpublished). Therefore, the sentence imposed by the trial court was not unconstitutionally excessive, and this assignment of error is without merit.
PATENT ERROR
Pursuant to La. Code Crim. P. art. 920(2), this court routinely reviews appellate records for patent error. State v. Sylve, 2022-1104 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/24/23), 2023 WL 2198829, *3 (unpublished). A patent error is one that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence. La. Code Crim. P. art. 920(2). After a careful review of the record, we have found two patent errors.
The record reflects that the trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty years imprisonment at hard labor without imposing the statutorily required restriction of benefits. See La. R.S. 14:95.1(B). Nevertheless, the restriction of benefits is statutorily deemed to be part of the defendants sentence pursuant to the self-activating provisions of La. R.S. 15:301.1. Accordingly, we need not take corrective action. See State v. Lee, 2023-0079 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/2/23), 2023 WL 3861763, *1 n.1 (unpublished).
The trial court also failed to impose the mandatory fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars. See La. R.S. 14:95.1(B). Accordingly, the defendants sentence is illegally lenient. However, since the sentence is not inherently prejudicial to the defendant, and neither the State nor the defendant has raised this sentencing issue on appeal, we decline to correct this error. See Kimble, 376 So.3d at 877.
For the above reasons, we affirm the defendants sentence.
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The predicate conviction for the instant offense is based on the defendants conviction for possession of cocaine, a violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C), Docket no. 07WFLN125, 20th Judicial District Court, Parish of West Feliciana, State of Louisiana.
2
. The defendants third-felony habitual offender status was based on two prior convictions in the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana: (1) aggravated battery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:34, Docket no. 12-92-0035; and (2) second degree battery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:34.1, Docket no. 07-97-0484.
3
. The defendant was sentenced under La. R.S. 15:529.1(A)(3)(b) (prior to amendment by 2017 La. Acts No. 257, § 1 and 2017 La. Acts No. 282, § 1 (eff. Nov. 1, 2017)). The applicable version of that statutory provision states, in pertinent part, “[i]f the third felony and the two prior felonies are felonies defined as a crime of violence under R.S. 14:2(B) ․ or any other crimes punishable by imprisonment for twelve years or more, or any combination of such crimes, the person shall be imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.”
4
. Three of the defendants motions were denied by the trial court without a hearing. After the trial court failed to rule on his final motion, the defendant sought a supervisory writ with this court, which was granted. State v. Carter, 2021-1349 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/30/21), 2021 WL 6331491, *1 (unpublished).
5
. We note the trial court failed to vacate the defendants original life sentence prior to imposing his new twenty-year sentence. (R. 2-3, 774-82). It is apparent the trial court intended to vacate the original sentence; therefore, this court vacates the original sentence out of an abundance of caution. See State v. Heard, 2015-00777 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/5/15), 2015 WL 3544446, *1 n.2 (unpublished).
6
. Moreover, unlike in other cases, the defendant herein did not admit to the allegations in the habitual offender bill of information in exchange for an agreed upon sentence. See Jones, 2015 WL 6951576 at *1, *4-5.
STROMBERG, J.