State v. Pettus
68 So. 3d 28
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Nathan Pettus appeals an adjudication as a fourth felony offender and a life sentence at hard labor without probation or suspension.
- The sentence is based on a conviction for theft of goods totaling about $807, under the habitual offender statute.
- A companion case, State v. Pettus, 10-215 (La.App. 5 Cir. May 24, 2011), addresses the conviction’s validity in related proceedings.
- Defendant argues the life sentence is grossly disproportionate to the theft offense and fails to contribute to punishment goals.
- Defendant did not file a motion to reconsider sentence and therefore receives a bare review for excessiveness.
- The record shows the trial court relied on Defendant’s extensive criminal history and the violent conduct at the offense in imposing life imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the life sentence is constitutionally excessive | Pettus argues disproportionate punishment for a ~$807 theft as a fourth offender. | Pettus contends the punishment is excessive and fails to further punishment goals. | Not excessive; sentence not shockingly disproportionate given history and offense. |
| Whether the sentence should be clarified as to hard labor under the Habitual Offender Law | Lacks argument beyond preservation of consistent formal labeling as hard labor. | Argues the record should reflect hard labor due to 2010 amendments. | Remanded to clarify the sentence to specify hard labor per current law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crawford, 922 So.2d 666 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2006) (excessiveness review depends on proportionality to harm and offense)
- State v. Riche, 608 So.2d 639 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1992) (excessive punishment defined by gross disproportionality)
- State v. Woods, 38 So.3d 391 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2010) (three-factor framework for reviewing sentencing discretion)
- State v. Hills, 866 So.2d 278 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2003) (bare review applicable when no reconsideration motion filed)
- State v. Magee, 916 So.2d 1178 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2005) (remand for sentence clarification when hard labor designation is ambiguous)
- State v. Lynch, 441 So.2d 732 (La. 1983) (transcript controls when conflict with commitment on indeterminate sentence)