State v. Hopkins, 268 So. 3d 1226

Troy Hopkins was convicted by a jury in 1999 of manslaughter for shooting and killing Roderick Adger during a drug-related encounter; appellate courts previously affirmed conviction and original life sentence as a third-felony offender.
Hopkins was adjudicated a third-felony offender based on prior convictions for simple robbery and unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling.
After Esteen relief, Hopkins moved to correct an illegal life sentence under post-2001 amendments to the Habitual Offender Law; the trial court found him eligible for ameliorative provisions and recalculated his sentencing range.
The court determined the correct sentencing exposure under La. R.S. 15:529.1(A)(1)(b)(i) to be 26.67 to 80 years (two-thirds to twice the longest term for manslaughter) because not all predicates qualified for a life habitual sentence.
At resentencing the court imposed a 65-year hard labor term (midrange), finding aggravating factors (deliberate cruelty; risk to multiple persons) and few mitigating factors; Hopkins appealed his resentencing as excessive and challenged the range calculation.
The court affirmed the 65-year sentence as non-excessive but remanded solely to correct the minutes to state the sentence is without probation or suspension, per La. R.S. 15:529.1(G).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Calculation of sentencing range under ameliorative Habitual Offender provisions	State: Trial court properly applied the 2001 amended scheme and calculated exposure	Hopkins: Trial court miscalculated the applicable sentencing range	Held: Court affirmed trial court’s calculation — manslaughter + one qualifying predicate yields 26.67–80 years exposure under La. R.S. 15:529.1(A)(1)(b)(i)
Excessiveness of 65-year resentencing	State: 65 years is midrange, justified by serious facts and articulable aggravating factors	Hopkins: Sentence is excessive and not sufficiently individualized	Held: Court found adequate consideration of La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 factors and concluded 65 years is not grossly disproportionate
Clerical/minutes error	State: minutes ambiguous re: benefits; statute self-implements no probation/suspension	Hopkins: minutes should reflect no probation/suspension to ensure correct calculation of time	Held: Affirm sentence; remand to correct minutes to state sentence is without probation or suspension per La. R.S. 15:529.1(G)

State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La. 1983) (trial court must show consideration of sentencing guidelines though not every factor must be enumerated)
State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La. 1982) (articulated factual basis for sentence is goal of art. 894.1; rigid compliance not required if record shows adequate basis)
State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (sentence is unconstitutional if grossly disproportionate to offense)
State v. Williams, 893 So.2d 7 (La. 2004) (trial court has broad discretion within statutory limits; appellate reversal only for manifest abuse)
State v. Sullivan, 216 So.3d 175 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2017) (habitual offender sentence conditions follow sentencing provisions for underlying offense)
State v. DeBerry, 194 So.3d 657 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2016) (appellate review standards for sentencing and art. 894.1 compliance)