247 So. 3d 179
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- In April 2015 Dexter Allen (then 17) was charged with two counts of second-degree murder (David and Nicholas Pence) and 21 counts of simple burglary; he was convicted by jury and later sentenced.
- Evidence tied Allen to the crimes: vehicle burglary evidence, fingerprints/DNA in a stolen Toyota Highlander, a Mossberg 12‑gauge shotgun recovered from under Allen’s mother’s house whose fired shells matched those at the scene, and items from victims found in the Highlander.
- Allen sought state funding for mitigation experts (mitigation investigator, psychologist, trauma and prison‑adjustment experts) ahead of a Miller v. Alabama sentencing hearing; the trial court denied funding and this court previously denied supervisory review.
- At the Miller hearing the State presented the homicide evidence and urged life without parole; the court considered the statutory Miller factors and imposed life without parole for the murder counts.
- Allen also challenged (1) the procedures and burdens applicable at the Miller hearing, (2) admission of victim‑impact testimony, and (3) technical sentencing errors for the burglary counts and incomplete post‑conviction advisal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Funding for mitigation experts at Miller hearing (Eighth Amendment/Touchet) | State: denial appropriate because defendant failed to show specific, non‑speculative need for experts | Allen: trial court violated his right to meaningful mitigation presentation by refusing funding for several experts | Court: Affirmed—Allen did not meet Touchet showing; had meaningful opportunity to present mitigation; law‑of‑the‑case bars reconsideration of prior writ denial |
| 2. Burden/procedure at Miller hearing (whether prosecution must prove aggravators outweigh mitigators) | State: Miller does not convert Miller hearings into full capital‑penalty procedures; La. C.Cr.P. art. 878.1 governs and suffices | Allen: prosecution must carry capital‑style burden to justify life without parole | Court: Affirmed trial practice—Miller requires consideration of youth‑related mitigation; statute provides procedure and court complied; no heightened capital burden required |
| 3. Admissibility/scope of victim‑impact evidence at Miller hearing | State: victim impact is permissible to show effect on family/community and is relevant under art. 878.1 and Montgomery | Allen: certain victim statements (non‑family impact, sentencing recommendations) exceeded scope of La. C.Cr.P. art. 905.2(A) and were prejudicial | Court: Admission was proper—Montgomery and statute permit victim impact at Miller hearings; unobjected testimony waived; trial court limited weight and retained sentencing authority |
| 4. Sentencing formality errors & advisal (counts 5–23; post‑conviction period) | State: sentences and advisals adequate | Allen: sentences on burglaries indeterminate because transcript did not specify hard labor; trial court gave incomplete PCR prescriptive advisal | Held: Vacated burglary sentences as indeterminate and remanded for determinate sentences; appellate court corrected advisal by informing Allen of two‑year PCR prescriptive period |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional without individualized consideration of youth‑related mitigation)
- State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (indigent defendant must show specific need and likely necessity for expert funding)
- State v. Jackson, 608 So.2d 949 (La. 1992) (standards for admission of unadjudicated crimes in penalty phase)
- State v. Bernard, 608 So.2d 966 (La. 1992) (victim impact evidence admissible at capital sentencing to show victim character and crime impact)
- State v. Montgomery, 194 So.3d 606 (La. 2016) (guidance that victim impact and other non‑exhaustive factors may be considered at Miller hearings)
- State v. Dove, 194 So.3d 92 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (discussion of Miller mitigation inquiry and irreparable corruption standard)
- State v. Smoot, 134 So.3d 1 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2014) (affirming life without parole for juvenile after Miller hearing where court considered youth‑related mitigation)
- State v. Fletcher, 149 So.3d 934 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2014) (Miller hearings may consider family/community impact and other factors under art. 878.1)