State v. Ladd
146 So. 3d 642
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Corey J. Ladd was arrested in 2011 after police found a small bag of marijuana on his person; charged with possession of marijuana, third or subsequent conviction (La. Rev. Stat. 40:966(E)(3)).
- The State filed a multiple offender bill; prior felony convictions included possession of Hydrocodone (2004) and possession of LSD (2006).
- A jury convicted Ladd on May 29, 2013. He was initially sentenced to ten years, but after the multiple-offender finding his sentence was vacated and he received 20 years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension.
- Court identified an illegal portion of the sentence: neither La. Rev. Stat. 40:966(E)(3) nor La. Rev. Stat. 15:529.1 prohibit parole; the no-parole provision was deleted.
- Ladd challenged the remaining mandatory 20-year (as applied, the court acknowledges mandatory range up to 20 years; Habitual Offender law set mandatory minimum for his status) sentence as unconstitutionally excessive given nonviolent history and small quantity of marijuana.
- Court applied habitual-offender jurisprudence and precedent (notably State v. Noble and State v. Johnson) and concluded Ladd did not meet the very narrow "exceptional offender" standard; sentence (as amended to allow parole) affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of no-parole term | State imposed no-parole under habitual offender findings | Ladd argued sentence included improper no-parole prohibition | Court: No-parole was illegal under the cited statutes; deleted that portion |
| Excessiveness of mandatory habitual-offender sentence | State: Habitual-offender mandatory minimums are presumed constitutional | Ladd: 20-year term is excessive for nonviolent, minimal marijuana possession and prior youthful, nonviolent offenses; Legislature considered reducing penalty | Court: Presumption stands; Ladd failed to prove he is an "exceptional" offender; sentence (with parole allowed) affirmed |
| Whether prior convictions justify habitual enhancement | State relied on prior felony pleas to enhance | Ladd implicitly challenged fairness of enhancement given offenses' nature | Court: Prior convictions validly supported habitual adjudication per precedent (Lewis/Noble) |
| Applicability of Noble/Johnson limits on departures | Defendant urged policy and comparative sentencing considerations | State urged adherence to mandatory sentencing and limiting departures | Court: Departures are exceedingly rare; Noble and Johnson require narrow exception which Ladd did not meet |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La. 1983) (defines excessive sentence standards)
- State v. Johnson, 709 So.2d 672 (La. 1998) (presumption of constitutionality for habitual-offender mandatory minimums)
- State v. Short, 725 So.2d 23 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1998) (defendant bears burden to rebut presumption)
- State v. Lindsey, 770 So.2d 339 (La. 2000) (defines "exceptional" offender standard)
- State v. Lewis, 104 So.3d 407 (La. 2012) (limits on using prior convictions in certain possession cases)
- State v. Noble, 114 So.3d 500 (La. 2013) (reversed lower-court downward departure from habitual-offender mandatory minimum)