State v. Hopkins, 268 So. 3d 1226

In 1999 Hopkins was convicted by jury of manslaughter for the 1997 shooting death of Roderick Adger during a drug-related encounter; witnesses identified Hopkins as the shooter.
Hopkins was previously adjudicated a third-felony offender (prior convictions: simple robbery and unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling) and originally sentenced to life without benefits; that sentence was affirmed on direct appeal.
After Esteen relief, Hopkins moved to correct an illegal sentence; the trial court found he was eligible under the ameliorative 2001 habitual-offender amendments and set resentencing.
The trial court calculated the correct sentencing range under the amended La. R.S. 15:529.1 as two-thirds of 40 years (≈26.67 years) to twice 40 years (80 years), because not all predicates qualified for a life habitual sentence.
At resentencing the court imposed a 65-year hard labor sentence (mid-range) and denied reconsideration; Hopkins appealed arguing excessiveness and erroneous range calculation.
The appellate court affirmed the 65-year sentence as not excessive and 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 2001 habitual-offender amendments	State: Hopkins is eligible for resentencing under the ameliorative scheme; range is two-thirds to twice the underlying max (26.67–80 years).	Hopkins: trial court miscalculated range / misapplied ameliorative provisions.	Held: Trial court correctly applied La. R.S. 15:529.1; manslaughter and one predicate are crimes of violence but not all predicates qualify for life, so range is 26–80 years.
Excessive sentence / consideration of mitigating factors (La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1)	State: 65 years is mid-range, court considered facts and relevant factors (danger to public, need for confinement, seriousness).	Hopkins: Sentence excessive; court failed to evaluate who he is beyond case facts and omitted appropriate mitigating factors.	Held: Sentencing court adequately complied with art. 894.1; 65-year midrange sentence does not shock the sense of justice.
Clerical specification of sentence conditions (error patent)	State: Minutes should reflect statutory limits per habitual-offender law.	Hopkins: Minutes do not explicitly state sentence is without probation/suspension.	Held: Remanded to correct minutes to state sentence is to be served without probation or suspension per La. R.S. 15:529.1(G).

State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La. 1982) (articulation required under sentencing statute does not demand rigid recitation; factual basis suffices)
State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (constitutional excessiveness standard; sentence grossly disproportionate if it shocks sense of justice)
State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La. 1983) (appellate review for compliance with art. 894.1)
State v. Weaver, 805 So.2d 166 (La. 2002) (gross-disproportionality analysis for sentences)
State v. DeBerry, 194 So.3d 657 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2016) (discussion of appellate review and sentencing discretion)