254 So. 3d 1246
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Bobby C. Terrick was convicted (2002) of second-degree murder for an offense committed when he was a juvenile and originally sentenced to life without parole; conviction and sentence were previously affirmed.
- After Miller v. Alabama, defendant sought resentencing; proceedings were delayed by discovery requests and continuances, and various postconviction motions were filed.
- On November 30, 2017 the trial court resentenced Terrick to life with parole eligibility after 25 years pursuant to La. R.S. 15:574.4 and La. C.Cr.P. art. 878.1 (statutory framework enacted to conform with Miller).
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no non-frivolous issues; the court notified defendant and received pro se supplemental filings.
- Defendant raised (pro se) claims that resentencing under La. R.S. 15:574.4 violated ex post facto, due process, and fair warning principles and that he should have been resentenced under the manslaughter statute in effect at the time of the offense.
- The appellate court reviewed the record independently, affirmed the resentencing (finding parole eligibility proper and not ex post facto), granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and remanded to correct the minute entry to reflect sentencing under §15:574.4(G).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing under La. R.S. 15:574.4 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | State: Applying §15:574.4 does not increase punishment; it only permits parole eligibility | Terrick: Retroactive application alters punishment and violates Ex Post Facto | Held: No ex post facto violation; statute does not increase punishment and provides the less severe outcome (parole eligibility) |
| Whether resentencing violated due process / fair warning | State: Resentencing under Miller framework and statute is constitutional | Terrick: He lacked fair notice; statute applied retroactively to his detriment | Held: No due process or fair-warning violation; resentencing followed Miller/Montgomery guidance and statutory scheme |
| Whether resentencing required reducing conviction to manslaughter | State: Miller remedy concerns parole eligibility, not reclassification of offense | Terrick: Should be resentenced under manslaughter law in effect at offense | Held: Trial court properly limited its inquiry to parole eligibility; manslaughter reclassification not required |
| Whether appellate counsel properly sought to withdraw under Anders | Appellate counsel: Record contains no non-frivolous issues; moved to withdraw | Terrick: Filed pro se objections and supplemental briefs | Held: Independent review found no non-frivolous issues; counsel’s motion to withdraw granted; appeal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016) (Miller applies retroactively to cases already final)
- State v. Tate, 130 So.3d 829 (La. 2013) (initially held Miller prospectively only)
- State v. Bradford, 676 So.2d 1108 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (procedure for Anders-type withdrawal)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for appointed counsel to request withdrawal)
- State v. Jyles, 704 So.2d 241 (La. 1997) (Anders brief sufficiency guidance)