239 So. 3d 233
La.2018Background
- John Esteen convicted (late 1990s) of multiple cocaine offenses; sentenced to consecutive hard-labor terms totaling 150 years; convictions and sentences affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2001 the Legislature enacted Act 403, reducing penalties for certain drug offenses; later declared in La. R.S. 15:308(B) that those ameliorative penalties "shall apply" retroactively to specified classes where application "ameliorates the person's circumstances."
- La. R.S. 15:308(C) (as reenacted) directs affected persons to apply to the parole/clemency apparatus (committee on parole / R.S. 15:574.2) for consideration of reductions, raising separation-of-powers concerns addressed in State v. Dick.
- Esteen moved under La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.5 to correct illegal sentences on the ground three of his terms exceed the maximums now authorized by law under the 2001 amendments and 15:308(B).
- The district court denied relief and the court of appeal denied writs based on Dick; the Louisiana Supreme Court reexamined Dick and harmonized 15:308(B) and (C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Esteen) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether La. R.S. 15:308(B) permits district courts to resentencing after ameliorative amendments | 15:308(B) makes the reduced penalty provisions retroactive; sentences now exceed statutory maxima and are therefore illegal under art. 881.5 | Relief is limited to executive review: applicant must apply to the committee on parole under 15:308(C); judicial resentencing would usurp executive commutation power (Dick) | Court rejected Dick's exclusive-executive remedy rule and held district courts may correct truly illegal sentences when the new law renders a previously-imposed term unauthorized; remanded for resentencing on three counts |
| Whether judicial resentencing would impermissibly exercise the executive commutation power | Esteen: legislature lawfully changed penalties and directed retroactive application; judicial correction to conform to statutory maximums is not commutation | State: reducing final sentences is in effect a commutation, an executive power reserved to governor/Board of Pardons | Court distinguished commutation from legislative amelioration and held judicial correction to enforce legislative sentencing ranges does not violate separation of powers |
| Proper remedy for sentences that remain within both old and new ranges | If sentence now exceeds the new statutory maximum it is illegal and subject to judicial correction | Where sentence falls within both ranges, relief should be via parole/clemency review under 15:308(C) | Court: two avenues exist — judicial resentencing when sentence exceeds new maximum; parole/committee review when sentence fits within both ranges |
| Scope of "illegal sentence" under La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.5 after ameliorative repeal/amendment | Ameliorative law that reduces the legislatively-authorized maximum makes an otherwise-lawful sentence illegal | Maintaining prior rule (law at time of offense controls) would preclude retroactive legislative amelioration | Court adopts view that "illegal sentence" includes terms no longer authorized by statute; art. 881.5 permits correction to conform to amended statutory maxima |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dick, 951 So.2d 124 (La. 2007) (held retroactive amelioration must be pursued through executive review; court overruled to the extent inconsistent with this opinion)
- Bosworth v. Whitley, 627 So.2d 629 (La. 1993) (legislature has exclusive authority to determine felony punishment length)
- State v. Rome, 696 So.2d 976 (La. 1997) (judiciary has power to sentence within legislative ranges)
- State v. Mayeux, 820 So.2d 526 (La. 2002) (legislative purpose and statutory language can require application of amendments to prior offenders)