State ex rel. Landry v. State

106 So. 3d 106, 2013 WL 211270, 2013 La. LEXIS 9
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJanuary 18, 2013
DocketNo. 2011-KH-0796
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 106 So. 3d 106 (State ex rel. Landry v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Landry v. State, 106 So. 3d 106, 2013 WL 211270, 2013 La. LEXIS 9 (La. 2013).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

11 Writ granted. Relator is presently serving a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole for a second degree murder committed in 1976 when he was 17 years old. The sentence was mandated by the penalty provision of the statute establishing the offense. R.S. 14:30.1. In 2011, relator filed a motion to correct an [107]*107illegal sentence in which he contended that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a juvenile offender is no longer constitutionally permissible under developing legal standards, and in particular in light of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S.-, 180 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010) (Eighth Amendment precludes sentencing juvenile offenders to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide crimes). The district court (Johnson, J) denied relief. While review of that judgment was pending, the United States Supreme Court determined that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments”. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). Unlike the case in Graham, the Miller court did not establish a categorical prohibition against life without parole for juveniles but instead required that a sentencing court consider an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics as mitigating circumstances before |2deciding whether to impose the harshest possibly penalty for juveniles. Therefore, we grant to remand to the district court to reconsider the sentence after conducting a new sentencing hearing in accordance with the principles enunciated in Miller v. Alabama.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carmon, Casey Demon
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
State ex rel. Landry v. State
148 So. 3d 942 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2014)
State v. Landry
142 So. 3d 9 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2014)
State v. Brooks
139 So. 3d 571 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014)
State v. Smoot
134 So. 3d 1 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014)
State v. Tate
130 So. 3d 829 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2013)
State v. Huntley
118 So. 3d 95 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)
State of Louisiana v. Darnell J. Huntley
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013
State v. Jones
165 So. 3d 74 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 So. 3d 106, 2013 WL 211270, 2013 La. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-landry-v-state-la-2013.