Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. George LEWIS
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1983-06-28
Citations: 434 So. 2d 1261
Docket Number: No. 83 KA 0031
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. George LEWIS.
Judges: Before LOTTINGER, COLE and CARTER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 434
Pages: 1261–1263

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. George LEWIS.
No. 83 KA 0031.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
June 28, 1983.
Ossie Brown, Dist. Atty., by Richard Johnson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rhett R. Ryland, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.
Before LOTTINGER, COLE and CARTER, JJ.

Opinion:
LOTTINGER, Judge.
Defendant, George Lewis, was charged by bill of information with two counts of forgery under La.R.S. 14:72. The charges arose from fraudulent use of a stolen Exxon credit card on March 21 and March 23, 1981. Defendant pled guilty to both counts in exchange for a promise by the district attorney that he would not be charged as a multiple offender. It does not appear that an agreement as to a specific sentence was reached. After a hearing, defendant was sentenced on the first count to serve eight years at hard labor, pay a fine of $2,000.00, and, in case of default of payment of the fine, to serve an additional one year. On the second count, defendant was sentenced to serve ten years. Sentences on the two counts were ordered to be served concurrently.
On appeal, defendant argues that the sentences imposed are excessive, constituting cruel, excessive and unusual punishment under the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, Article I, Section 20. Defendant argues that the court did not refer to mitigating factors applicable to him, specifically that he had been gainfully employed for quite some time and that his conduct in this or other cases had never caused or threatened to cause any serious injury or harm.
In State v. Beasley and State v. Romero, 430 So.2d 1273 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), consolidated, this court stated that if a plea bargain was entered into the sentence cannot be attacked as excessive. However, a review of the cases cited in Beasley indicates that perhaps a sentence may be reviewable if entered pursuant to a guilty plea based upon a plea bargain which does not represent an agreement as to a specific sentence. See State v. Benton, 432 So.2d 334 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983) and cases cited therein. Thus we shall review defendant's assignment of error.
La.R.S. 14:72 reads in pertinent part, "whoever commits the crime of forgery shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than ten years, or both." Thus, the maximum accumulated sentences to which the defendant herein was exposed were fines of ten thousand dollars and imprisonment of twenty years. In sentencing the defendant, the trial judge made specific reference to defendant's lengthy criminal record as a juvenile and an adult, and expressed a certainty that defendant, if not incarcerated, would commit another felony. The trial judge further alluded to and adopted in his reasons the entire pre-sen-tence investigation report, which contained appropriate references to La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1, listing factors to be considered in sentencing.
When the trial judge recites some of the La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1 factors, such as defendant's lengthy criminal history or the risk that defendant will commit another crime, a factual basis for the sentence is present, and it is not necessary for the trial judge to enumerate each factor under the article. State v. Mott, 409 So.2d 263 (La.1982); State v. Douglas, 389 So.2d 1263 (La.1980). Considering defendant's lengthy juvenile and adult record, the sentences imposed, and the fact that they are to run concurrently, we find no abuse of discretion.
Therefore, for the above and foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences of the defendant are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
LOTTINGER, COLE and CARTER, JJ., specially concurring.