State v. Thurman, 71 So. 3d 468

Thurman was convicted by jury on six counts of distribution of cocaine and adjudicated a third felony offender for each count.
The trial court sentenced Thurman to 45 years at hard labor for each count, without parole, probation, or suspension, all to be served concurrently.
The State sought habitual offender treatment under La. R.S. 15:529.1; Thurman had prior felonies including two cocaine possessions and a gun possession case.
Evidence included controlled buys by a confidential informant, with audio-video recordings, money provided as buy money, and subsequent lab-confirmed cocaine.
Thurman challenged the sentence as excessive and indeterminate on appeal.
The appellate court affirmed the convictions and, as amended, affirmed the sentences, with modifications to parole eligibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the concurrent 45-year sentences excessive	Thurman argues sentences are excessive given factors not considered.	State contends the sentences fall within statute and reflect history and offense.	Sentences not excessive; middle of range; properly considered 894.1 factors.
Was the sentence indeterminate given habitual enhancement on six counts	Thurman contends lack of per-count enhancement details renders sentence indeterminate.	State argues habitual enhancement applied per count as requested, satisfying article 879.	Sentence compliant; not indeterminate; enhancement clearly applied to each count.
Parole eligibility and correction of parole provisions	Thurman contends parole status was not properly limited or stated.	State and court acknowledge lack of parole for entire term per 15:529.1 but amend for parole eligibility.	Amendment: only the first two years are to be served without parole; remainder subject to parole in compliance with law.

State v. Smith, 433 So. 2d 688 (La. 1983) (Art. 894.1 consideration required, not rigid listing)
State v. McDaniel, 974 So. 2d 146 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2008) (need not weigh specific factors identically; may vary)
State v. Autry, 30 So. 3d 1068 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2010) (art. 894.1 articulation standard)
State v. Jones, 754 So. 2d 392 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2000) (factors for sentencing and weight assigned may vary)
State v. Haley, 873 So. 2d 747 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2004) (historical context for sentencing considerations)
State v. Shaw, 969 So. 2d 1233 (La. 2007) (habitual offender application across multiple convictions)
State v. Montgomery, 31 So. 3d 560 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2010) (habitual offender sentencing on multiple convictions)
State v. Bruins, 407 So. 2d 685 (La. 1981) (parole/suspension interaction with habitual sentencing)
State v. Richard, 550 So. 2d 300 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1989) (statutory framework for enhanced penalties)
State v. Weaver, 805 So. 2d 166 (La. 2002) (proportionality considerations in sentencing)
State v. Williams, 893 So. 2d 7 (La. 2004) (broad discretion in sentencing within statutory limits)
State v. Mayweather, 677 So. 2d 594 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1996) (indeterminacy concerns when enhancement not clearly tied to counts)
State v. Shaw, 969 So. 2d 1233 (La. 2007) (per-count habitual enhancement to multiple convictions)