State v. Mandigo, 136 So. 3d 292

Mandigo was convicted of possession of cocaine (18.1) in excess of 28 grams but less than 200 grams and adjudicated a third felony offender.
He was sentenced to 40 years at hard labor with the first five years without parole, probation, or suspension, to run concurrently with two other drug sentences.
On remand from an initial reversal, the trial court adjudicated him as a third felony offender under 15:529.1, based on prior felonies.
The prior predicate analysis precluded counting the 1993 cocaine possession conviction and the 1998 attempted firearm possession conviction together as predicates.
The state sought habitual-offender enhancement; he appealed arguing excessive sentence, while pro se filings raised additional issues.
The appellate court affirmed his conviction and sentence, concluding the 40-year term was within the properly calculated midrange for a third felony offender.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 40-year term as third felony offender is excessive	Mandigo contends a lengthy drug history and nonviolent offenses merit a lesser sentence.	Mandigo argues the court failed to articulate aggravating factors and malpositions of the guidelines.	No abuse; midrange 40 years upheld.
Double enhancement challenge to predicate predicates	Mandigo argues using 1993 predicate plus 1998 firearm conviction constitutes improper double enhancement.	State contends proper adjudication under Baker; no prejudice shown.	No reversible error; adjudication as third offender valid.
Right to self-representation and Faretta implications	Mandigo asserts trial court should have advised him of right to represent himself.	Faretta does not require judicial advisement; defendant already exercised pro se representation.	Assignment meritless.
Patent error regarding probation/suspension considerations	Error under 15:529.1(G) about without-benefits and probation/suspension.	Without-benefits provisions are self-activating and do not require corrective action.	No corrective action required; sentence affirmed.

State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (capitalizes on proportionality standard for excessive sentences)
State v. Shipp, 78 So.3d 805 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2011) (underlines deference to trial court when discretion exercised properly)
State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La. 1983) (article 894.1 consideration factors)
State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049 (La. 1981) (reliance on defendant’s history and offense seriousness)
State v. Baker, 970 So.2d 948 (La. 2008) (double-enhancement framework and predicate use)
State v. Johnson, 709 So.2d 672 (La. 1998) (exceptional circumstances to rebut mandatory minimums)
State v. Thurman, 71 So.3d 468 (La. 2012) (without-benefits and sentencing consequences under habitual offender statute)
State v. Bruins, 407 So.2d 685 (La. 1981) (relation between underlying offenses and non-suspension sentences)