171 So. 3d 1223
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Dominique Davis was convicted by a jury of four counts of second-degree murder and other crimes; originally sentenced (Dec. 5, 2011) to consecutive life terms without parole on the murder counts plus long terms on related counts.
- This Court affirmed convictions but vacated the portions of the mandatory life-without-parole sentences for the murder counts because Davis was a juvenile at the time, remanding for resentencing under Miller v. Alabama.
- At the Miller resentencing hearings, the State presented gruesome crime-scene evidence (photographs and investigating testimony) showing killings of young victims, including execution-style shootings of children.
- Davis submitted a Miller brief describing his youth (age 16 at offense), learning disability, low IQ (full-scale IQ 76), poor school record, limited juvenile record, allegations that older co-defendants were more culpable, and that he did not testify because of family threats.
- The trial court conducted the statutorily required hearing (LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 878.1), considered Miller factors and Louisiana Article 894.1 sentencing criteria, and reimposed consecutive life sentences without benefit of parole, finding the brutality and facts of the crimes justified denying parole eligibility.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the life-without-parole sentences for the juvenile murders, concluded the trial court complied with Miller and did not impose an excessive sentence, and remanded only to correct clerical errors on the commitment order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether life imprisonment without parole for murders committed at age 16 is excessive under Miller/Eighth Amendment | State: Trial court complied with Miller; crime severity and aggravating facts justify denial of parole | Davis: Youth, limited education, low IQ, minimal juvenile record, weak identity evidence, family threats justify parole eligibility | Affirmed: Trial court properly considered Miller factors and sentencing criteria; denial of parole eligibility not excessive |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles unconstitutional; sentencer must consider youth and attendant characteristics)
- State v. Brown, 118 So.3d 332 (La. 2013) (Miller permits life-without-parole only after consideration of mitigating circumstances)
- State v. Tate, 130 So.3d 829 (La. 2013) (Miller-related statutory scheme applies prospectively on collateral review)
- State v. Smoot, 134 So.3d 1 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2014) (affirming life-without-parole after Miller hearing where court considered youth and mitigation)
- State v. Brooks, 139 So.3d 571 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2014) (affirming trial court’s denial of parole eligibility after Miller-compliant resentencing)