State v. Long
106 So. 3d 1136
| La. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Long appeals a 104-year habitual offender sentence for armed robbery with a firearm enhancement; the prior 99-year sentence was vacated for indeterminacy due to missing firearm enhancement and remanded.
- On remand, the trial court re-imposed 99 years plus a five-year firearm enhancement, total 104 years, to be served consecutive to the firearm term.
- Long objected to the harsher sentence on remand; the court noted possible ranges up to 203+ years but chose the low end within statutory limits.
- The record shows Long has an extensive criminal history and the offense involved entering a bar with a co-perpetrator using a weapon to terrorize victims.
- An errors patent review revealed inconsistency in the Uniform Commitment Order, which incorrectly stated a total of 198 years; the case is remanded to correct this.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessiveness of the habitual sentence | Long argues 104 years is excessive given the facts and constitutional limits. | Long contends the sentence is excessive and not properly tailored to culpability. | Not excessive; within statutory limits and prescribed by law. |
| Compliance with sentencing guidelines under Article 894.1 | Long asserts the court failed to articulate reasons per Article 894.1. | Long notes lack of guideline articulation but argues compliance isn’t required for habitual offender sentences. | Compliance not required for statutorily prescribed habitual offender sentence. |
| Remand for correction of an error patent in the Uniform Commitment Order | Long’s position relies on the record accuracy for total incarceration length. | Long argues remand was unnecessary if the remand already addressed excessiveness. | Remand for correction of the Uniform Commitment Order total length of incarceration. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Howard, 987 So.2d 330 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2008) (upholds constitutionality of similar habitual offender sentences)
- State v. Nguyen, 958 So.2d 61 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2007) (excessiveness review balancing crime, offender, and comparable sentences)
- State v. Allen, 868 So.2d 877 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2004) (guideline and discretion framework in review of sentences)
- State v. Tracy, 831 So.2d 503 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2002) (no mandatory weight for specific factors; wide discretion)
- State v. Carter, 570 So.2d 234 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1990) (upholding long habitual offender-like sentences given history and harm)
- State v. Armstrong, 683 So.2d 1261 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1996) (affirming long sentence under habitual offender considerations)
- State v. Bruce, 54 So.3d 87 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (upholding high-end sentences considering history and circumstances)
- State v. Otero, 31 So.3d 1125 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (comparative authority for habitual offender sentencing limits)
- State ex rel. Roland v. State, 937 So.2d 846 (La. 2006) (remediation of sentencing instruments under Article 892)
- State v. Taylor, 956 So.2d 25 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2007) (reaffirming review of habitual offender sentences for constitutionality)