crime, there was an undue risk that defendant would commit more criminal offenses if he received a lesser sentence. Finally, the court took into consideration the victim impact statement and the pre-sentence investigation interview with the victim who was permanently paralyzed from the abdomen down as a result of the instant crime. Based on the trial court’s review of the record of this crime, the defendant’s criminal history, the severe and life-altering nature of the offense, and the future risk of harm to others, we find that the trial court adequately complied with La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, and defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment without probation or suspension is supported by the record. See State v. Randall, 10-1027, pp. 10-13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/22/11), 69 So.3d 683, 689-90 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, we find this assignment of
holding that prior convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana are admissible to impeach defendant recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell holding that dual convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon violated double jeopardy holding the imposition of a maximum sentence of life imprisonment was not excessive for conviction of possession of cocaine where defendant was adjudged to be a fourth felony offender with prior convictions for manslaughter two prior convictions for possession of cocaine and numerous arrests for drug offenses possession of a firearm by a felon aggravated battery and armed robbery holding that convictions for two counts of possession of one quantity of cocaine constituted double jeopardy and fundamental error reversing one possession conviction and remanding for resentencing