228 So. 3d 201
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant James J. Spikés, Jr., an inmate at Washington Parish Jail, was observed concealing a cell phone under a blanket during a cell-block search; surveillance corroborated the conduct.
- Charged with possession of contraband in a state correctional institution (LSA-R.S. 14:402), convicted by jury and initially sentenced to four years at hard labor.
- State filed a habitual-offender bill based on prior convictions for illegal use of a weapon and possession of cocaine; after a hearing, court adjudicated defendant a third-felony habitual offender.
- Trial court vacated the four-year sentence and resentenced defendant to eight years at hard labor without benefit of probation or suspension; defendant objected as excessive.
- On appeal defendant (counseled) argued the enhanced eight-year habitual-offender sentence was unconstitutionally excessive and should be reduced; (pro se) he argued one predicate conviction (a 2010 Alford plea for cocaine possession) was infirm and should not have been used.
- Trial and appellate courts found the record supported the predicate convictions and that defendant failed to show he was "exceptional" to justify departing from the presumptively constitutional mandatory minimum under the Habitual Offender Law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessiveness of habitual-offender enhanced sentence | State: enhanced sentence within statutory range and justified by recidivism; trial court considered relevant factors | Spikés: eight-year habitual-offender sentence is unconstitutionally excessive; court should depart from mandatory minimum | Court: sentence not grossly disproportionate; defendant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he is "exceptional" under Dorthey/Johnson; no downward departure warranted |
| Validity of predicate conviction used for habitual adjudication | State: certified pen pack and defendant's admission at hearing suffice to prove prior conviction | Spikés: 2010 Alford plea for cocaine possession was infirm because informant was "non-existent" and arrest fabricated | Court: collateral attack improper; State met burden with certified records and defendant produced no affirmative evidence of procedural infirmity; predicate conviction properly used |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorthey v. State, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (trial court may reduce habitual-offender mandatory minimum if punishment is grossly disproportionate and makes no measurable contribution to goals of punishment)
- Johnson v. State, 709 So.2d 672 (La. 1998) (presumption favoring mandatory minimum; defendant must show by clear and convincing evidence that he is exceptional)
- Lanclos v. State, 419 So.2d 475 (La. 1982) (Art. 894.1 requires factual basis for sentence; rigid recitation not required if record shows adequate consideration)
- Sepulvado v. State, 367 So.2d 762 (La. 1979) (Eighth Amendment/excessive sentence framework: gross disproportionality standard)
- Henry v. State, 788 So.2d 535 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2001) (standards for collateral attack on prior guilty plea used to enhance sentence)