Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Stampley
Citation: 457 So. 2d 1238Docket: 84-KA-0154 to 84-KA-0159
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; October 9, 1984; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Tonja Stampley pleaded guilty to multiple offenses, including two counts of forgery and theft, with crimes committed between July 1981 and February 1983. Following a Boykin examination, the trial judge sentenced her to a total of twelve years in prison, with ten years for the forgery convictions and additional sentences for theft convictions running consecutively and concurrently as appropriate. Stampley appealed, arguing the trial judge failed to adhere to LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 requirements and imposed excessive sentences. Article 894.1 mandates that the trial judge consider the risk of reoffending, the need for custodial services, and the seriousness of the crimes when determining sentences. The judge must also document the factors influencing his decision, although he is not required to list all considerations. The maximum sentence should be reserved for the most serious offenders. The judge noted Stampley's extensive criminal history, with 33 arrests—28 for similar offenses—and her status as a drug user without employment. This record justified the maximum sentences imposed, supporting the conclusion that she is a habitual offender likely to reoffend. Furthermore, the offenses were deemed separate incidents, not arising from a single course of conduct, which justified consecutive sentencing as per LSA C.Cr.P. art. 883. Thus, the trial judge complied with legal requirements and did not abuse discretion in sentencing. The trial judge appropriately exercised discretion by imposing maximum consecutive sentences for three of the defendant's six convictions, leading to the affirmation of the convictions and sentences. The defendant, Stampley, faced multiple charges: forgery of a check (July 20, 1981), felony theft of children's clothing valued between $100 and $500 (June 5, 1982), misdemeanor theft of merchandise valued under $100 (July 12, 1982), another misdemeanor theft of goods under $100 (April 27, 1982), a second felony theft of merchandise valued between $100 and $500 (October 21, 1982), and a subsequent forgery of a check (February 6, 1983). Additionally, the court minutes inaccurately recorded the second felony conviction's sentence as consecutive, while the trial judge intended for the 18-month term to run concurrently with other sentences. The misdemeanor theft convictions are considered nonappealable, but all six convictions and sentences were consolidated for review to promote judicial efficiency.