State v. Robinson
105 So. 3d 751
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Robinson was convicted on January 30, 2008, of possession with intent to distribute heroin (offense date January 5, 2006).
- A fourth-felony habitual offender bill was filed March 3, 2008; he was sentenced February 5, 2009 to 20 years and fines, with jail time if unpaid.
- An initial habitual offender hearing on November 12, 2009 adjudicated him a fourth-felony offender; March 8, 2010 sentence was life imprisonment without parole or suspension.
- Robinson’s conviction was affirmed on appeal, but a patent error was found for failing to advise him of his right to remain silent before the habitual hearing; remanded for new habitual offender proceedings.
- At a December 5, 2011 hearing, Robinson was adjudicated as a second-felony offender and sentenced to 40 years’ hard labor, with five years without parole; issues arose regarding admissibility of prior convictions.
- The trial court later vacated the second-felony adjudication due to unresolved proof of the cleansing period and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cleansing period was properly proven | Robinson contends the State failed to prove discharge date, so cleansing period not expired. | State concedes discharge date not proven; requests remand for proper proof. | Adjudication vacated; remand for proper proof of cleansing period. |
| Excessiveness of sentence | Robinson argues sentence is excessive given circumstances. | Not explicitly argued beyond procedural issues; if valid adjudication remains, review may proceed. | Moot because adjudication/sentence not validly established. |
| Pro se assignments | Robinson asserts multiple errors pro se. | State and court reject these as meritless. | Denied; issues rejected. |
| Bill of Information sufficiency | Information allegedly deficient for lacking drug quantity specifics. | No requirement to specify quantity; information sufficiently identifies offense. | Not defective; sufficient notice given. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 987 So.2d 5 (La. Ct. App. 2006) (cleansing period proof is patent error when discharge date not shown)
- State v. Metoyer, 612 So.2d 755 (La. Ct. App. 1992) (cleansing period timing from discharge; burden to prove discharge date)
- State v. Timmons, 998 So.2d 145 (La. Ct. App. 2008) (cleansing period rulings and habitual offender proof)