165 So. 3d 228
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Kerry Cureaux was convicted of heroin possession (June 2, 2010) and sentenced to 7 years at hard labor (Aug. 13, 2010).
- On Nov. 4, 2011 a habitual-offender adjudication found him a fourth felony offender and he was resentenced to 20 years; this adjudication was later reversed on appeal because no multiple bill was in the record.
- This court vacated the habitual-offender sentence and reinstated the original 7‑year sentence on May 1, 2013; Cureaux was released on parole about two weeks later.
- The State filed a new multiple bill (initially as a triple offender, then amended to a fourth offender) on May 21, 2013; the trial court denied Cureaux’s motion to quash as untimely.
- A second habitual-offender hearing was held and Cureaux was adjudicated a fourth felony offender and resentenced to 20 years on Dec. 2, 2013.
- Cureaux appealed, arguing (1) the May 21, 2013 multiple bill was untimely (speedy-trial violation) and (2) the 20‑year sentence is excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of multiple bill (speedy‑trial) | State: filing after appellate reversal was timely; delay largely due to appeals and defense continuances | Cureaux: delay from Aug. 2010 to Dec. 2013 violated speedy‑trial and due process; multiple bill should be quashed | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no proof of State bad faith, much delay attributable to defense and appeals; bill timely |
| Excessiveness of 20‑year habitual‑offender sentence | State: sentence is mandatory minimum for a fourth offender and presumptively constitutional | Cureaux: 20 years is grossly disproportionate for possession for personal use | Sentence affirmed; Cureaux failed to show exceptional circumstances to rebut presumption of constitutionality |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Muhammad, 875 So.2d 45 (La. 2004) (multiple‑bill timing governed by reasonableness and Barker factors rather than a bright‑line rule)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four factors for speedy‑trial analysis)
- State v. McQueen, 308 So.2d 752 (La. 1975) (earlier precedent referenced regarding timing of habitual‑offender filings)
- State v. Smith, 839 So.2d 1 (La. 2003) (standard for reviewing claims of excessive sentence)
- State v. Johnson, 709 So.2d 672 (La. 1998) (mandatory habitual‑offender minimums presumed constitutional; defendant must show exceptional circumstances)