State v. RobertsState v. Roberts
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Edward A. Dufresne Jr., Marion F. Edwards, Madeline Jasmine
The Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of information charging defendant, James Roberts (also known as Gilbert Allen), with the following: possession of MDMA in violation of
On January 26, 2007, defendant was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment at hard labor on each count to run concurrently. Further, the first two years of both sentences were imposed without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. On this same date, the State filed a multiple offender bill of information, alleging defendant was a third felony offender. Defendant denied these allegations. On November 9, 2007, the trial court found defendant to be a third felony offender and vacated defendant‘s sentence on count two. Defendant was re-sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. This sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence previously imposed for count five. On November 13, 2007, the trial court denied defendant‘s motion to reconsider sentence and granted defendant‘s motion for appeal.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE
On appeal defendant sets forth one assignment of error. Specifically, he alleges that the mandatory sentence imposed by the trial judge is excessive. In this case, defendant was found to be a third felony offender, with an underlying conviction of distribution of cocaine and predicate convictions of distribution of cocaine2 and first degree robbery.3 According to
(ii) If the third felony and the two prior felonies are felonies defined as a crime of violence under
R.S. 14:2(B) , a sex offense as defined inR.S. 15:540 et seq. when the victim is under the age of eighteen at the time of commission of the offense, or as a violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law punishable by imprisonment for ten years or more, or any other crimes punishable by imprisonment for twelve years or more, or any combination of such crimes, the person shall be imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
Based on this sentencing provision, defendant received the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Thereafter, defendant orally moved to reconsider his sentence while noting that he would supplement the motion. He then filed a written motion to reconsider sentence, merely alleging the trial court failed to consider mitigating circumstances and that his sentence was excessive, unconstitutional, and violated sentencing guidelines. The trial court denied defendant‘s motion to reconsider sentence. Defendant now contends that the trial court erred in denying this motion. Specifically, defendant argues that his life sentence is excessive and a lesser sentence was justified. He further asserts that the trial court only stated that the sentence was mandated by law and
The
A mandatory minimum sentence under the Habitual Offender Law may be reviewed for constitutional excessiveness. State v. Lindsey, 99-3256, 99-3302 (La.10/17/00), 770 So.2d 339, 342, cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1010, 121 S.Ct. 1739, 149 L.Ed.2d 663 (2001). In State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276, 1280-81 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court specifically held that when a trial court determines that the minimum sentence mandated by
It is presumed that a mandatory minimum sentence under the Habitual Offender Law is constitutional. State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), 709 So.2d 672, 676. Downward departures from the minimum sentence mandated by
[he] is exceptional, which in this context means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a victim of the legislature‘s failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstances of the case.
State v. Johnson, 709 So.2d at 676 (quoting State v. Young, 94-1636 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/26/95), 663 So.2d 525, 531 (Plotkin, J., concurring), writ denied, 95-3010 (La.3/22/96), 669 So.2d 1223).
In the present case, defendant did not urge a downward deviation at the time of sentencing. In his motion to reconsider sentence, he simply asserted his sentence was unconstitutionally excessive and violated sentencing guidelines. At no time at trial or on appeal has defendant argued or presented any evidence showing any exceptional circumstances to justify a downward departure from the mandatory life sentence. Thus, defendant has failed to carry his burden of proof that the imposed mandatory life sentence was excessive.
Further, defendant argues that the trial court, in imposing the life sentence, failed to consider mitigating factors under
ERROR PATENT DISCUSSION
We have also conducted an error patent review in accordance with
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, we affirm defendant‘s convictions and sentences.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED.