NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

CHUTZ, J.

Defendant, Regis Re'mone Chatman, was charged by bill of information1 with three counts of armed robbery with a firearm, violations of La. R.S. 14:64 and 14:64.3 (counts I, III, and IV). Defendant pled not guilty on each count but, following a jury trial, was found guilty as charged on count IV.2 Motions for new trial and post-verdict judgment of acquittal were filed but denied by the trial court. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a total of forty years at hard labor, without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, and was given credit for time served. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel orally moved for reconsideration of the sentence, which was denied by the trial court. Defendant now appeals, solely assigning error to his sentence that he claims is excessive. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Around 6:30 p.m. on June 8, 2013, Alvin Barnes was walking in Covington's Abita Nursery Subdivision, in the area of Violet Street. Soon after Barnes reached the shed where his motorcycle was parked, defendant and "Jammal," the co-defendant, approached him. Defendant held up a gun and told Barnes to give up everything in his pockets. Barnes complied and placed $500.00 cash on the seat of his motorcycle. Defendant retrieved the money, and as he and the co-defendant were backing away, the co-defendant grabbed defendant's gun and instructed him not to shoot. Once the two robbers left, Barnes called 911. After the responding officer arrived, Barnes explained what happened and provided the police officer with defendant's name. Barnes later positively identified defendant using a photographic lineup, and again during trial, as the person who robbed him. A few days after the robbery, defendant voluntarily turned himself in to the police.

EXCESSIVE SENTENCE

In his sole assignment of error, defendant contends his sentence is unconstitutionally excessive. Specifically, he asserts that because he is a "young, 22 year old man," and that his "current offense involves a theft of only $500 from [the victim]; he admitted the crime; turned himself in without the need for further investigation; the victim, Mr. Barnes, thinks well of him, and believes that [he] can be rehabilitated with a ten year sentence; and his prior crimes are all misdemeanors," his sentence should be reduced.

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of excessive or cruel punishment. Although a sentence may be within statutory limits, it may violate a defendant's constitutional right against excessive punishment and is subject to appellate review. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 767 (La. 1979). Generally, a sentence is considered excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime or is nothing more than the needless imposition of pain and suffering. A sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the harm to society, it is so disproportionate as to shock one's sense of justice. A trial judge is given wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within statutory limits, and the sentence imposed should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Hurst, 99-2868 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/3/00), 797 So.2d 75, 83, writ denied, 2000-3053 (La. 10/5/01), 798 So.2d 962.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 894.1 sets forth criteria which must be considered by the trial court before imposing a sentence. While the trial court need not recite the entire checklist of Article 894.1, the record must reflect that it adequately considered the criteria. In light of the criteria expressed by Article 894.1, a review for individual excessiveness should consider the circumstances of the crime and the trial court's stated reasons and factual basis for its sentencing decision. 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 Article 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions. State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475, 478 (La. 1982). 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).

Whoever commits the crime of armed robbery shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than ten years and for not more than ninety-nine years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. La. R.S. 14:64(B). Furthermore, when the dangerous weapon used in the commission of the crime of armed robbery is a firearm, the offender shall be imprisoned at hard labor for an additional period of five years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. This additional penalty shall be served consecutively to the sentence imposed under La. R.S. 14:64. See La. R.S. 14:64.3(A). In this case, defendant was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for a total of forty years, without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, and was also given credit for time served.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated, in pertinent part:

A thorough review of the record reveals the trial court adequately considered the criteria of Article 894.1 and did not manifestly abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence herein. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1(A)(2), (3), (B)(6), (10), (19) & (33). Accordingly, the sentence imposed was not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense and, thus, was not unconstitutionally excessive. This assignment of error lacks merit.

DECREE

For these reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence of defendant, Regis Re'mone Chatman.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.