State v. Lewis, 245 So. 3d 363

On Sept. 30, 2015, officers executing a parole-violation arrest found Lewis in his bedroom with synthetic cannabinoids in a bowl and in 38 individually sealed bags, $400 in counterfeit bills, $96 real cash, and a ledger listing people who owed him money.
Lewis was charged with monetary instrument abuse and possession with intent to distribute synthetic cannabinoids; a jury convicted him of the responsive verdicts: attempted monetary instrument abuse and attempted possession with intent to distribute synthetic cannabinoids.
The State filed a habitual-offender bill based on a 2005 armed robbery conviction; Lewis was adjudicated a second-felony habitual offender.
The trial court sentenced Lewis to 7½ years at hard labor on each conviction, to run concurrently, without benefit of probation or suspension, and imposed a $2,000 fine on each conviction.
Lewis filed a pro se motion to reconsider sentence within 30 days and appealed; the trial court record contains no ruling on the pro se motion. On appeal he argued the habitual-offender enhancement resulted in unconstitutionally excessive sentences and an abuse of the habitual-offender law.

Issue	Lewis's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Lewis's habitual-offender sentences are constitutionally excessive	Sentences are grossly disproportionate for nonviolent offenses; habitual-offender law abused against nonviolent actors	Sentences fall within mandatory ranges for a second-felony habitual offender and are presumed constitutional; Lewis failed to show he is "exceptional"	Affirmed: sentences are not grossly disproportionate; Lewis failed to rebut presumption of constitutionality
Whether fines imposed after habitual-offender adjudication were authorized	(Implied) fines were part of sentence	Habitual-offender statute does not authorize imposition of underlying statutory fines after adjudication	Vacated/amended: $2,000 fines stricken because trial court lacked authority to impose them after habitual adjudication

State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (mandated habitual-offender sentence must be reduced if it is nothing more than purposeless pain or grossly out of proportion)
State v. Johnson, 709 So.2d 672 (La. 1998) (presumption of constitutionality for habitual-offender minimums; defendant must prove exceptional circumstances)
State v. Guidry, 221 So.3d 815 (La. 2017) (addresses jury instructions and comments noting concerns about frequent use of habitual-offender enhancements for nonviolent defendants)
State v. Lobato, 603 So.2d 739 (La. 1992) (standards for constitutional review of sentences: illegality, gross disproportionality, or shocking the sense of justice)
State v. Dickerson, 584 So.2d 1140 (La. 1991) (habitual-offender statute does not authorize imposition of fines after adjudication)