State of Louisiana Versus Corey Woods, 303 So.3d 403

Corey Woods was convicted by a jury of three counts of distribution of heroin.
At initial sentencing he received three consecutive 50-year hard labor terms; after stipulating as a second-felony offender the trial court vacated count one and imposed an enhanced 50-year sentence to run consecutively to counts two and three.
On Woods's first appeal this Court affirmed convictions and the enhancement but vacated the sentences on counts two and three as constitutionally excessive and remanded, suggesting 20–40 years concurrent as reasonable.
On remand the trial court resentenced counts two and three to 40 years at hard labor each, to run concurrently with the 50-year enhanced sentence on count one, and ordered the first ten years of the 40-year terms served "without benefit" of parole, probation, or suspension.
Woods obtained an out-of-time appeal, challenging (1) excessiveness of the resentences and (2) ineffective assistance because counsel did not file a motion to reconsider sentence.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the 40-year concurrent terms as within the appellate court’s suggested range, held counsel was not ineffective, deleted the court-imposed parole prohibition as unauthorized by statute, and remanded to correct the Uniform Commitment Order (UCO).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Woods)	Held
Whether the 40-year concurrent sentences on counts 2 & 3 are constitutionally excessive	Sentences are within statutory limits and within the range the appellate court suggested on remand	40‑year terms (and previously imposed consecutive exposure) are grossly disproportionate and excessive	Affirmed: 40-year concurrent sentences are not constitutionally excessive (within suggested 20–40 year range)
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to reconsider sentence	Failure to file does not automatically equal prejudice; record lacks reasonable probability sentence would differ	Counsel's omission forfeited preservation of specific objections (no PSI ordered; arrest circumstances not considered) and was deficient	Denied: counsel not ineffective; Woods failed to show reasonable probability of a different outcome
Whether trial court illegally limited parole eligibility and whether UCO must be corrected	The court had imposed a "without benefit" restriction, but parole limitation is not authorized by the statute	The parole prohibition is unauthorized and the UCO should reflect separate concurrent sentences and proper benefit terms	Modified: deleted parole prohibition (amended sentences), ordered correction of UCO and transmission to DOC

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test)
State v. Woods, 262 So.3d 455 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2018) (prior Fifth Circuit opinion vacating consecutive sentences and recommending 20–40 years concurrent)
State v. Nguyen, 958 So.2d 61 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2007) (framework for reviewing sentences for constitutional excessiveness)
State v. Lobato, 603 So.2d 739 (La. 1992) (recognizes trial court's wide sentencing discretion and "shock the sense of justice" standard)
State v. Christoff, 788 So.2d 660 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2001) (failure to file motion to reconsider limits review to constitutional excessiveness)
State v. Gayden, 168 So.3d 766 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2015) (appellate court may correct illegal sentences under La. C.Cr.P. art. 882)