268 So. 3d 1160
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant was convicted in 1998 of two counts of armed robbery and originally sentenced to 99 years on each count; after a multiple bill finding he was adjudicated a fourth-felony offender and previously resentenced to life on one count.
- Following Esteen, defendant filed a pro se motion (2018) seeking resentencing under the 2001 ameliorative changes (La. Acts 403) made retroactive by La. R.S. 15:308(B).
- At the resentencing hearing the trial court vacated the earlier life sentence and imposed a 99-year term as a fourth-felony offender, with the court initially granting parole eligibility but denying probation/suspension; the State objected regarding parole.
- Defendant argued the 99-year sentence is constitutionally excessive and urged a Dorthey downward departure based on rehabilitation and age; the State contended the 99-year mandatory minimum is presumptively constitutional and parole should be prohibited per the underlying offense.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the 99-year sentence (within the amended statutory range), rejected defendant’s Dorthey showing (no clear-and-convincing evidence of an exceptional case), amended the sentence to expressly deny parole, and remanded to correct the uniform commitment order date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mathis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant is entitled to resentencing under Esteen/2001 amendments | Esteen entitles defendant to resentencing under the 2001 ameliorative law; resentencing should follow statutory terms | Agrees entitlement to Esteen resentencing; seeks lower than statutory mandatory minimum | Court: Esteen resentencing appropriate; defendant resentenced under 2001 provisions to 99 years |
| Whether the 99-year enhanced sentence is unconstitutionally excessive | Mandatory minimums are presumptively constitutional; defendant did not meet Dorthey burden | 99 years is grossly disproportionate given rehabilitation, age, program completion; asks Dorthey downward departure | Court: Defendant failed to show by clear-and-convincing evidence that his case is an exceptional Dorthey case; sentence not excessive |
| Whether trial court could impose a downward departure at an Esteen resentencing based on rehabilitation | Downward departures from the 2001-range are not justified absent Dorthey showing; court should apply statutory range | Argues rehabilitation and transformation justify a departure from the mandatory minimum | Court: Even if permissible, defendant did not meet Dorthey standard; no downward departure granted |
| Whether enhanced sentence should be without benefit of parole | State: underlying offense (armed robbery) carries parole prohibition; habitual offender sentence should mirror underlying disability | Trial court initially concluded parole eligibility applied under the multiple offender statute; defense argued parole should be allowed | Court: Amend sentence to explicitly prohibit parole, probation, and suspension of sentence (correcting trial court oversight) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Esteen, 239 So.3d 233 (La. 2018) (held 2001 ameliorative penalty provisions apply retroactively under La. R.S. 15:308(B) and courts may resentence)
- State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (established review of mandatory habitual-offender sentences for constitutional excessiveness)
- State v. Johnson, 709 So.2d 672 (La. 1998) (clarified Dorthey; defendant must show by clear and convincing evidence that he is "exceptional")
- State v. Dick, 951 So.2d 124 (La. 2007) (previously held relief under La. R.S. 15:308 was limited to executive relief via Risk Review Panel)
- State v. Smith, 839 So.2d 1 (La. 2003) (explains that sentences within statutory limits may still be reviewed for constitutional excessiveness)