State v. Keith, 223 So. 3d 767

In 1998 Audy W. Keith, Jr., who was 16 at the time of the offense, pled guilty to second-degree murder and received the mandatory sentence of life at hard labor without parole, probation, or suspension.
Facts: Keith shot the victim during a robbery scheme orchestrated by a co-defendant; Keith agreed to plead guilty and testify against the co-defendant to avoid the death penalty.
After Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), Keith moved to correct his sentence; the trial court vacated the original sentence and resentenced him to life at hard labor but with parole eligibility and credit for time served.
Keith appealed, arguing (1) the Louisiana Supreme Court improperly set parole parameters usurping legislative authority and created ex post facto problems; (2) he was denied a meaningful Miller hearing to present mitigating youth-related evidence; and (3) the court failed to specify when he becomes parole-eligible.
The state conceded Keith was not among the worst juvenile offenders and agreed to remove the parole bar; the trial court followed Montgomery and applicable Louisiana provisions when resentencing.

Issue	Keith's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the court/LSC exceeded legislative authority or violated ex post facto principles by applying Montgomery and granting parole eligibility	The Louisiana Supreme Court lacked authority to set sentencing parameters; retroactive application violates ex post facto; he should be resentenced to next lesser included offense (manslaughter) per Craig	Miller/Montgomery did not abolish life sentences for juvenile homicide; applying Montgomery and existing statutes does not increase punishment	Court: No ex post facto violation; Craig relief inapplicable; life remains lawful and parole eligibility may be granted under Montgomery
Whether Keith was entitled to a Miller hearing to present mitigating youth evidence (Dorthey-style hearing)	He was denied a meaningful sentencing hearing to present mitigating evidence to avoid parole exclusion	State conceded Keith was not among worst offenders and elected to remove parole bar; therefore no hearing was necessary because no evidence would reduce sentence below life with parole eligibility	Court: No error—no Miller hearing required where state conceded parole eligibility and no lesser sentence would result
Whether resentencing without specifying parole-board eligibility timing was erroneous	Court failed to determine when he becomes parole-board eligible	Parole eligibility timing is governed by La. R.S. 15:574.4(E) and Department/parole board procedures	Court: No error—statute and parole board determine timing

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment absent individualized consideration of youth)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller applies retroactively; states may remedy Miller violations by making juvenile offenders parole‑eligible)
Craig v. State, 340 So.2d 191 (La. 1976) (remedy for unconstitutional mandatory death penalty was resentencing to the next lesser included offense)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment bars life-without-parole for juvenile non-homicide offenses)
State v. Shaffer, 77 So.3d 939 (La. 2011) (Louisiana response to Graham: amend or remove parole bars rather than resentencing to lesser offense)