259 So. 3d 1089
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Myron Turner was convicted in 2015 of four counts of distribution of cocaine; one count dismissed pretrial.
- After conviction, the State filed a habitual-offender bill; defendant was adjudicated a third felony offender and originally sentenced to 40 years (consecutive to a separate 10-year term) but this Court vacated the sentence and remanded for a recusal hearing in Turner I.
- On remand the presiding judge recused himself sua sponte and transferred the case; a different judge resentenced Turner as a third felony offender to 25 years at hard labor on each count, to run concurrently with each other but consecutive to the 10-year term Turner was already serving.
- Turner appealed only the resentencing; the conviction was previously affirmed and is final, so this appeal was limited to sentencing issues.
- The appellate court found a minor errors-patent issue (failure to state benefit restrictions), but held La. R.S. 15:301.1(A) cures that omission; the court affirmed the 25-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Turner's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 25-year third-felony-offender sentence (consecutive to a 10-year term) is unconstitutionally excessive | Sentence is within statutory range at time of offense; trial court complied with La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 and reasonably weighed recidivism and public safety | Sentence is excessive in light of post-offense legislative reductions in drug/habitual-offender penalties and amounts to a near-life term for sale of small amounts | Affirmed: sentence not excessive; within 20–60 year range effective at offense, trial court did not abuse discretion and considered mitigating/aggravating factors |
| Whether the record on remand is incomplete because no transcript of a recusal hearing exists | The judge’s written recusal order satisfied the remand; no hearing was required under La. C.Cr.P. art. 672 | Appellant says absence of a recusal-hearing transcript denies meaningful appellate review | Rejected: written motion/order sufficed; no transcript exists because no hearing occurred |
| Whether sentencing as a habitual offender constitutes double jeopardy | Habitual-offender adjudication is an enhancement, not a new prosecution or separate punishment | Turner argues the enhancement punishes him again for underlying offenses | Rejected: double jeopardy does not bar habitual-offender proceedings; statute is an enhancement provision |
| Whether failure to orally impose statutory restrictions on parole/probation rendered sentence defective | State: La. R.S. 15:301.1(A) deems statutory benefit restrictions to be part of the sentence even if omitted at sentencing | Turner points out the sentencing judge did not state the required no-benefit language on the record | Resolved as harmless: statutory mechanism self-activates restrictions; no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Parker, 871 So.2d 317 (La. 2004) (law at time of offense controls sentencing)
- State v. Sugasti, 820 So.2d 518 (La. 2002) (ameliorative changes in penalty are a factor but do not negate penalties in effect at offense)
- State v. Hayes, 412 So.2d 1323 (La. 1982) (habitual-offender statute as enhanced punishment, not separate offense)
- State v. Langendorfer, 389 So.2d 1271 (La. 1980) (double jeopardy does not apply to habitual-offender proceedings)