State v. Phillips
Also decided on this docket: La., May 16, 2003 843 So. 2d 1119
State v. Phillips, 831 So. 2d 905 (La. 2002).
Cited by
- State of Louisiana v. Perry L. Briley La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
- State of Louisiana v. Kanethra Burnett La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
- State of Louisiana v. Darrell Clark La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
- State of Louisiana v. Trae Williams La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
- State v. Bibbins 258 So. 3d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- State v. Doucette 243 So. 3d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- State v. Wilson 165 So. 3d 1150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
- State v. Rouser 158 So. 3d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
- State v. Quezada 141 So. 3d 906 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
- State v. Laneheart 135 So. 3d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
- State v. Carter 131 So. 3d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
- State v. Hackett 122 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Cook 674 So. 2d 957
Opinion text
831 So.2d 905 (2002) STATE of Louisiana v. Larry PHILLIPS. No. 2002-K-0737. Supreme Court of Louisiana. November 15, 2002. *906 PER CURIAM. Writ granted; court of appeal decision as to sentencing reversed and set aside; trial court's sentence reinstated. In State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La.5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957, 959 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043 , 117 S.Ct. 615 , 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996), this Court emphasized that the only relevant question on review of a sentence within the statutory limits is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether another sentence might be more appropriate. In the present case, the sentencing court detailed why the defendant's cooperation with federal authorities did not warrant imposition of a sentence in line with the relatively mild penalty imposed in the federal court. The proper question here is not whether another court might have weighed defendant's cooperation with federal authorities differently and imposed a lesser penalty. Rather, the focal question is whether the penalty imposed by the sentencing court is excessive because it is grossly disproportionate to the offense. Given the sheer magnitude of defendant's criminal organization, involving upwards of 30 people, and the large amount of cocaine, approximately 1,800 grams at the time of arrest, the defendant cannot show that the sentencing choice is grossly disproportionate to the offense.