State v. Boutte, 58 So. 3d 624

Boutte challenged his monetary instrument abuse conviction and his adjudication as a fourth felony offender after a prior appellate remand and a new habitual offender hearing.
The trial court again adjudicated Boutte as an habitual offender and sentenced him to 20 years at hard labor.
Counsel raised two assignments of error; three pro se claims were also asserted by Boutte.
The issues include whether the State proved the discharge dates (cleansing period) and whether the 20-year minimum sentence is excessive, as well as several pro se challenges to the predicate convictions and the use of non-finalized or clerical-error information.
The court held that the cleansing-period issue did not require discharge-date proof given the ten-year interval facts, upheld the 20-year minimum sentence, and found the pro se and clerical-error challenges to be meritless.
The disposition affirmed Boutte’s adjudication as a fourth felony offender and the 20-year sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Cleansing period proof for 4th offender	Boutte: discharge dates not proven; cleansing period invalidates adjudication.	Boutte: cleansing period not satisfied; discharge dates essential.	No merit; cleansing period not required given timing.
Excessiveness of 20-year sentence	Boutte: sentence excessive and should depart from minimum.	State: minimum sentence constitutional; no exceptional circumstances.	No merit; presumption of constitutionality preserved.
Counsel at predicate pleas	Pro se: lack of counsel at predicate pleas, invalidating the adjudication.	Minutes show counsel representation at each plea.	Meritless; record shows representation.
Clerical-error in predicate date	Error in predicate conviction date in bill of information prejudices outcome.	Clerical error harmless; correct case number and offense identified.	Harmless error; no prejudice to Boutte.
Use of non-finalized conviction for enhancement	Townley/Martin concerns; non-final convictions cannot support enhancement.	District court permissible; existing precedent allows use.	No merit; Townley distinctions do not require reversal here.

State v. Davis, 937 So.2d 5 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2006) (discusses cleansing period and discharge-date proof)
State v. Sanders, 542 So.2d 1134 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1989) (State need not prove discharge date if <10 years)
State v. Webster, 664 So.2d 624 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1995) (cleansing period interpretation in habitual offender context)
State v. Carey, 901 So.2d 509 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2005) (clerical error in bill of information not prejudicial when correct identifiers exist)
Townley v. Dep’t. of Pub. Safety & Corr., 681 So.2d 951 (La. 1996) (finality rule for prior convictions used for habitual offender status)
State v. Martin, 316 So.2d 740 (La. 1975) (sentencing under Habitual Offender Law not dependent on finality of underlying convictions)