State of Louisiana v. Christopher Raymond Diano, 2024-KK-00888

Christopher Diano was convicted of a felony (inciting a felony) in 2023 for conduct on January 24, 2021.
The State sought to adjudicate Diano as a habitual offender based on three earlier felony convictions (2009, 2010, 2013) under Louisiana’s Habitual Offender Law (La. R.S. 15:529.1).
Diano completed parole for these prior felonies on December 25, 2015, and was later incarcerated for 180 days for a misdemeanor in 2018-2019.
The key dispute was whether the 180-day misdemeanor incarceration interrupted the five-year “cleansing period” between felonies, thus allowing enhanced sentencing.
The district court granted Diano’s motion to quash the habitual offender bill, finding misdemeanor incarceration should not pause the cleansing period. This ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does misdemeanor incarceration interrupt the cleansing period under La. R.S. 15:529.1(C)(1)?	State: Any incarceration (felony or misdemeanor) tolls the five-year period.	Diano: Only felony-related incarceration tolls the period; misdemeanors do not count.	Misdemeanor incarceration does not pause/toll the cleansing period.
Was there sufficient evidence that Diano’s parole/probation for the 2013 felony lasted until April 8, 2016?	State: Defense stipulated supervision lasted to April 8, 2016 (making the offense within the period).	Diano: No formal stipulation; insufficient record evidence he was under supervision past Dec 25, 2015.	No formal stipulation; state failed to prove supervision past Dec 2015.
Should ambiguous criminal statutes be strictly construed in favor of lenity?	State: The statute is clear and should be applied broadly; lenity not invoked.	Diano: Ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity, limiting enhancements.	Statute construed in favor of lenity; enhancements disfavored without clear basis.
Would State's interpretation lead to absurd or unconstitutional results?	State: No absurdity; all incarceration should count.	Diano: Excluding all incarceration (even for minor offenses) would lead to absurd/cruel results.	State’s reading creates potential absurdity and is rejected.

State v. Anderson, 349 So.2d 311 (La. 1977) (purpose of the cleansing period is to promote rehabilitation by forgiving recidivists after a period free of felony convictions)
State ex rel. Mims v. Butler, 601 So.2d 649 (La. 1992) (rule of lenity in construing penal statutes)
State v. Shaw, 969 So.2d 1233 (La. 2007) (statutory interpretation requires considering statute’s purpose and context)
State v. Skipper, 906 So.2d 399 (La. 2005) (criminal statutes are to be given a fair and genuine construction)
State v. Kisack, 236 So.3d 1201 (La. 2017) (state bears the burden to prove the cleansing period has not elapsed)