State v. Hall

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Hall

946 So. 2d 173, 2007 La. LEXIS 3, 2007 WL 79521

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 12, 2007

DocketNo. 2006-K-1358

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 946 So. 2d 173 (State v. Hall) 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 v. Hall, 946 So. 2d 173, 2007 La. LEXIS 3, 2007 WL 79521 (La. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The record at sentencing does not show clearly and convincingly that the mandatory minimum sentence for a fourth offender required by La.R.S. 15:529.1(A)(l)(e)(I) is unconstitutional as applied to defendant in the present case. The trial court erred in failing to afford the presumption of constitutionality to the mandatory minimum sentence required by the Habitual Offender statute, and the court of appeal erred in deferring to the sentencing discretion of the judge on a record devoid of facts and circumstances demonstrating that defendant is an exceptional 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 crime. See State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), 709 So.2d 672. Defendant’s sentence of eight years at hard labor is vacated and this case is remanded to the district court for resen-tencing. The district court may deem it appropriate to order a presentence investigation, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 875(A), and to hold a hearing on defendant’s motion to deviate from the minimum term mandated [174]*174by La.R.S. 15:529.1(A)(l)(c)(I) before imposing sentence.

JOHNSON, J. would deny the writ.

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

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The record at sentencing does not show clearly and convincingly that the mandatory minimum sentence for a fourth offender required by La.R.S. 15:529.1(A)(l)(e)(I) is unconstitutional as applied to defendant in the present case. The trial court erred in failing to afford the presumption of constitutionality to the mandatory minimum sentence required by the Habitual Offender statute, and the court of appeal erred in deferring to the sentencing discretion of the judge on a record devoid of facts and circumstances demonstrating that defendant is an exceptional 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 crime. See State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), 709 So.2d 672. Defendant’s sentence of eight years at hard labor is vacated and this case is remanded to the district court for resen-tencing. The district court may deem it appropriate to order a presentence investigation, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 875(A), and to hold a hearing on defendant’s motion to deviate from the minimum term mandated [174]*174by La.R.S. 15:529.1(A)(l)(c)(I) before imposing sentence.

JOHNSON, J. would deny the writ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

946 So. 2d 173, 2007 La. LEXIS 3, 2007 WL 79521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hall-la-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack