State v. Taylor, 258 So. 3d 217

Darrell Taylor (age 70) was indicted for distribution of heroin after a controlled buy on Sept. 21, 2016; seven tinfoil packets totaling ~1 gram tested positive for heroin.
Taylor was convicted by a jury (June 20, 2017); PSI ordered. Sentenced Sept. 12, 2017 to 25 years at hard labor, with 10 years purportedly without parole; sentence to run concurrent with a probation revocation. Appeal granted.
Taylor has an extensive criminal history dating to the 1960s, including an armed robbery conviction (crime of violence) and a 2014 conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute heroin; he is an eighth felony offender.
Defense argued sentence was excessive given Taylor’s age, serious medical conditions, low education, and addiction; sought downward departure and/or motion to reconsider but did not file a written motion to reconsider.
Trial court considered PSI, public health danger of heroin, and Taylor’s long criminal history; judge reduced an initially contemplated 30-year term to the PSI-recommended 25 years.
Errors-patent review found an illegal parole restriction (statute did not authorize restriction); court amended sentence to delete parole restriction and remanded to correct the minute entry.

Issue	Taylor's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Excessive sentence	25-year term shocks the conscience given age, infirmities, addiction, low education, and minimal role; requests vacatur/remand for downward departure	Sentence within statutory range; serious public-health harm from heroin, eighth-felony status (including violent crime) justifies sentence; trial court considered mitigating factors	Sentence not unconstitutionally excessive; affirmed (but amended to remove unauthorized parole restriction)
Ineffective assistance at sentencing	Counsel failed to preserve grounds (no written motion to reconsider/downward departure) and thus prejudiced Taylor	Counsel argued age, health, addiction, and sought leniency at sentencing; failure to file formal motion did not prejudice because judge considered those factors	No ineffective assistance; counsel advocated mitigating factors and outcome would not likely differ

State v. Smith, 839 So.2d 1 (La. 2003) (framework for excessive-sentence review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Mosby, 180 So.3d 1274 (La. 2015) (vacating mandatory enhanced sentence for elderly infirm nonviolent offender)
State v. Ellis, 190 So.3d 354 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (remand for meaningful sentencing where record lacked factors for life sentence scrutiny)
State v. Hall, 172 So.3d 61 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (downward departure where advanced age, lifelong addiction, and nonviolent history made mandatory term excessive)
State v. Pearson, 975 So.2d 646 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2007) (appellate review standard for sentence within statutory limits)
State v. Williams, 224 So.3d 1194 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2017) (noting serious public-health threat of heroin in sentencing analysis)