262 So. 3d 455
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Corey Woods was tried by jury and convicted of three counts of distribution of heroin from controlled buys on Jan. 10, 17, and 19, 2017; forensic testing confirmed heroin. Counts four and five were later nol-prossed.
- Undercover officer recorded the transactions but videos did not always show exchange of money or drugs; officer identified Woods from a photo lineup.
- After conviction, the State filed a habitual-offender bill; Woods later stipulated to being a second-felony offender and agreed to an enhanced sentence of 50 years per count.
- The trial court initially sentenced Woods to 50 years on each of the three counts to run consecutively (total 150 years), with some portions to be without benefits; Woods objected and filed a motion to reconsider.
- On appeal the court upheld the convictions and the stipulated enhanced sentence but found the consecutive structure (150 years total) for the underlying sentences on counts two and three to be constitutionally excessive and vacated those two sentences, remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessiveness of consecutive 50-year sentences | State: Defendant cannot challenge the enhanced sentence because it was imposed per his plea/stipulation; trial court did not abuse discretion in sentencing | Woods: Sentences are grossly excessive given circumstances (no weapons, no marked money/drugs found on him, only undercover ID), lack of PSI, not worst type of offender | Court: Enhanced sentence precluded from challenge (agreed). But original concurrent sentences on counts 2 & 3 (not part of plea) are grossly excessive when made consecutive; vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether consecutive sentences were justified for offenses arising from the same course of conduct | State: Consecutive sentences permissible under court discretion when offender is grave risk or other aggravating history | Woods: Convictions arose from same scheme over three days; presumption favors concurrent sentences and judge offered no specific reasons for consecutiveness | Court: Because convictions arose from common scheme and judge did not articulate reasons for consecutive terms, consecutive 150-year exposure shocks the sense of justice; remand for resentencing |
| Applicability of La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.2 to appellate review of sentence | State: Article bars review where sentence conforms to plea agreement set forth on record | Woods: Sought review of enhanced sentence despite plea/stipulation | Held: Article 881.2 bars appellate excessiveness review as to the agreed enhanced sentence; Woods precluded from challenging that portion |
| Appropriate range for resentencing counts 2 & 3 | State: (implicit) trial court discretion supports lengthy terms due to heroin distribution and prior history | Woods: Requested lesser, non-maximum concurrent terms; argued mitigation should have been considered | Court: Suggested constitutionally reasonable sentence of 20–40 years for each distribution conviction to run concurrently; remanded for resentencing consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Washington, 916 So.2d 1171 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2005) (appellate review barred where sentence conforms to plea agreement on record)
- State v. Williams, 106 So.3d 1068 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2012) (preclusion to challenge an agreed enhanced sentence)
- State v. Nguyen, 958 So.2d 61 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2007) (Eighth Amendment/Article I §20 excessive-sentence standard)
- State v. Ortego, 382 So.2d 921 (La. 1980) (convictions from same course of conduct presumptively concurrent)
- State v. St. Amant, 169 So.3d 535 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2015) (sentences for multiple distribution convictions reviewed for proportionality; concurrent sentences affirmed)
- State v. Williams, 445 So.2d 1171 (La. 1984) (trial court may impose consecutive sentences when past acts or background justify grave risk to community)