STATE OF LOUISIANA v. MAURICE ERVIN (2024)

I would grant the writ application, vacate the sentence, and remand the matter to the trial court to conduct the sentencing hearing anew. This would allow for full development of the relevant evidence and ensure defendant receives a sentence commensurate with his offense. Moreover, a fully developed record is crucial for meaningful appellate review.

Without a doubt, this 15-year-old defendant committed a serious, violent crime. He was charged and convicted of two counts of armed robbery of two citizens involving the terrifying theft, at gunpoint, of their car. The trial court sentenced defendant to 50 years imprisonment at hard labor on each count.

Before imposing this weighty sentence on the teenage defendant, the trial court denied his request for a presentence investigation (PSI) report. While this decision remains in the discretion of the trial court, there are occasions when such a report is merited. In my view, this is certainly one of them. As Judge Johnson noted, a PSI report “could have been a great resource to the trial court, in addition to the underlying facts of the case, when sentencing the 15-year-old defendant in this matter.” State v. Ervin, 23-11, p. 21 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/30/23), 370 So.3d 1236, 1251 (Johnson, J., concurring). A PSI report discusses “the circumstances attending the commission of the offense, the defendant's history of delinquency or criminality, his family situation and background, economic and employment status, education, and personal habits.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 875. This information is particularly relevant when sentencing a young defendant. Not considering all of these factors, and only considering the facts of the crime, skirts close to running afoul of United States Supreme Court jurisprudence mandating individualized sentencing of juvenile defendants. See e.g., Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010).

Alternatively, a course of action I routinely chose as a trial judge and recommend in lieu of ordering a PSI report is to hold a full sentencing hearing. At such a hearing, all mitigating and aggravating circumstances are presented so that the court may carefully apply the sentencing guidelines provided in La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 and then “state for the record the considerations taken into account.” Id. Moreover, sentencing is a critical stage of the proceedings at which the right to the effective assistance of counsel is sacrosanct. See generally State v. Harris, 2018-1012 (La. 7/9/20), 340 So.3d 845. As I have emphasized previously, “[e]ven in the absence of a PSI, it is incumbent upon both the State and defense counsel to call witnesses and present evidence to inform the court of the nature of the person standing before it who is to be sentenced.” State v. Aguliar-Benitez, 2021-00174, p. 7 (La. 10/10/21), 332 So.3d 618, 622 (Crichton, J., concurring).

For these reasons and in order to fully develop the record for meaningful appellate review, I would grant the writ application, vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court to either order a PSI report or conduct a new sentencing hearing, or both.

Crichton, J., would grant and assigns reasons.