200 So. 3d 400
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Adrian Tyrone Little (age 22) pled guilty to second-degree murder for shooting and killing a convenience store clerk during a robbery; surveillance video showed the clerk complied and was shot twice (head and back).
- Defendant turned himself in, confessed, and denied intent to kill; he later claimed impaired state but denied drug use to police; he had multiple prior arrests and was on probation for attempted felony theft at the time.
- The state initially sought the death penalty but withdrew after an IQ evaluation suggesting mild mental deficit; sanity/competency commission psychiatrists found defendant competent and able to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense.
- Defense presented a psychologist who reviewed school records showing childhood IQ scores in the mid-40s and opined a mental age of about nine, though he never interviewed the defendant.
- Trial court imposed the mandatory statutory sentence for second-degree murder: life at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension; the court denied a motion to reconsider based on youth, first-felon status, and alleged mental retardation.
- On appeal defendant argued the mandatory life sentence was excessive given his intellectual disability and urged extension of Miller/Graham protections to mentally retarded offenders; the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Little's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mandatory life-without-parole sentence for second-degree murder is excessive given defendant's alleged intellectual disability | Mandatory sentence is legislatively prescribed and constitutional; defendant failed to prove he is an "exceptional" case warranting departure | Mandatory sentence is excessive because mentally retarded offenders should be afforded protections like juvenile offenders under Miller/Graham | Affirmed — defendant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence was unconstitutionally disproportionate or that he is "exceptional" |
| Whether Miller and related juvenile-Eighth Amendment precedents require relief for intellectually disabled adult offenders | Miller/Graham apply to juveniles; their rationale (capacity for change, lesser culpability) does not translate to intellectually disabled adults here | Argues Miller's logic should extend to intellectually disabled adults to avoid disproportionate punishment | Rejected — court distinguished juveniles from intellectually disabled adults and found Miller not controlling; no showing of likely changeover-time or diminished culpability sufficient to overcome mandatory sentence |
| Whether the trial court adequately considered mitigating factors (age, first-felon status, mental retardation) under La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 | Court was not required to justify a constitutionally mandated sentence under art. 894.1; record shows consideration and expert evidence contradicted severe impairment claims | Court failed to meaningfully consider his intellectual disability as mitigating and hence sentence is excessive | Affirmed — mandatory sentence need not be justified under art. 894.1; defendant did not meet the high burden for a downward departure |
| Whether competency/insanity evaluations or expert reports supported a lesser sentence | Sanity commission psychiatrists found competency and ability to distinguish right/wrong; defense expert had limited basis and did not interview defendant | Defense expert’s review of school records showed low childhood IQ scores supporting mental retardation and reduced culpability | Held that expert evidence did not carry clear-and-convincing burden; objective facts (video, planning, post-offense conduct) showed deliberation and culpability |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (execution of intellectually disabled offenders violates Eighth Amendment)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (death penalty for offenders under 18 unconstitutional)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders unconstitutional)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders unconstitutional)
- State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (sentence violates La. Const. art. 1, § 20 if grossly disproportionate)