1, Grаnted. Defendant was convicted of a fourth offense possession of marijuana and adjudicated as a third felony offender based on two prior guilty pleas to possession of cocaine. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to impose a sentence less than the minimum sentence mandated by the Habitual Offender law and sentenced defendant to serve five yеars imprisonment at hard labor. The court of appeal granted the state’s application for supervisory writs because it found that “the trial judge failed to articulate sufficient reasons to justify why the [five-year] sentence it imposed ... was the maximum sentence that is not constitutionally excessive.” State v. Noble,
On remand, the trial court offered the following justifications for the sentenсe imposed. First, the trial court adopted the reasons previously | ¡.enunciated at the timе of sentencing, which included that defendant supports seven children, two of whom have significant medical problems, and that all of the defendant’s offenses have been non-violent. Next, the trial judge expressed concern about the sentencing ranges authorized by Louisiana law generally for possession of marijuana. The trial judge opined that possession of marijuana is a less serious crime than possession of other controlled dangerous substances such as сocaine. The trial judge noted that possession of small quantities of marijuana is punished morе harshly under state than federal law and the trial judge expressed disbelief that possession of mаr
The courts below erred. Defendant was prоperly adjudicated and sentenced as a third felony offender because the prior felony convictions alleged in the habitual offender bill filed by the state formed no part of defendant’s conviction for fourth offense possession of marijuana. See State v. Lewis, 12-1835 (La.11/30/12),
In the present case, the district court noted that defendant supports several children, who would also be punished by incarcerating him, and that defendant’s criminal history consists of non-violent but repeated possession of small quantities of cоcaine and marijuana. Neither factor individually or in combination defines a class of offender sufficiently narrow to qualify as exceptional. Furthermore, the district court expressed criticism for the sentences authorized for possession of marijuana in this jurisdiction generally, a criticism not limited to this particular defendant and these particular circumstances, and therefore also not a sufficiently narrowing and defining circumstance. Johnson, 97-1906 at 11,
We therefore agree with the state that the district court erred in granting defendant’s motion to impose a sentence less than the minimum mandated by the Habitual Offender law. The sentence is vacated and the |4matter remanded for resеntenc-ing to a term of imprisonment not less than the mandatory minimum term required by law, consistent with the principles enunciated in Johnson.
COURT OF APPEAL DECISION REVERSED; CASE REMANDED