State v. Shaffer
77 So. 3d 939
| La. | 2011Background
- Relators Shaffer, Leason, and Dyer were juveniles when convicted of aggravated rape and sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor; Dyer received life without parole, Shaffer and Leason received life with possible commutations but no explicit parole preclusion.
- Louisiana law previously precluded parole for life sentences via commutation provisos in La.R.S. 15:574.4(B) and related provisions in 15:574.4(A)(2); parole eligibility is governed by these statutes and executive clemency.
- Graham v. Florida held that juveniles convicted of non-homicide crimes cannot be sentenced to life without parole and require a meaningful opportunity for release through rehabilitation and parole access, not ad hoc clemency.
- Relators argued Graham requires immediate removal of parole barriers and resentence to the next lesser included offense; they relied on the commutation provisos to block parole.
- Louisiana Supreme Court held Graham requires a meaningful opportunity for release, but did not order immediate release; it amended Dyer’s sentence to remove the parole restriction and directed parole-eligibility updates for all relators.
- Dissent criticized the remedy as insufficient under Graham and suggested remanding for fixed-term resentencing to establish calculable parole eligibility; majority declined that approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Graham require parole eligibility for juvenile non-homicide offenders? | Shaffer/Leason: commutation barriers violate Graham; relief via resentencing. | State: commutation provisos block parole and must be respected; executive clemency is the remedy. | Graham requires meaningful opportunity for release; commutation barriers cannot foreclose parole access. |
| May the commutation provisos be severed to comply with Graham while preserving parole structure? | Relators: sever the commutation provisos to allow parole eligibility. | State: provisos control parole access; severance undermines legislative scheme. | Court cannot enforce commutation provisos to withhold parole; directs parole-eligibility updates under statute. |
| What is the proper remedy to implement Graham in these cases? | Remand for resentencing to fixed terms under the next lesser verdict, enabling parole. | Amendments to parole eligibility suffices; not an order for immediate parole release. | Amendments to reflect parole eligibility; not release; remand for fixed-term resentencing was suggested by dissent but not adopted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. _ (2010) (juvenile non-homicide life without parole unconstitutional; meaningful opportunity for release required)
- Bosworth v. Whitley, 627 So.2d 629 (La. 1993) (parole preclusion by commutation proviso applies by operation of law)
- State v. Wilson, 362 So.2d 536 (La. 1978) (parole eligibility constraints tied to commutation statutes)
- State v. Dyer, 420 So.2d 686 (La. 1982) (juvenile aggravated rape; life sentence consideration in factor)
- Valentine v. State, 364 So.2d 595 (La. 1978) (resentence to next available responsive verdict following death-penalty changes)
- Angel v. State, 704 S.E.2d 386 (Va. 2011) (parole/conditional release as Graham-compliant framework outside automatic release)