STATE v. DEMPSEY (2020)

Writ application denied. See per curiam.

This sentence imposed for robbery—396 years in prison without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence—is obviously excessive. Mr. Dempsey was convicted of committing two armed robberies on the same day in 2002. He robbed, but did not harm, two couples and stole approximately $300. The trial judge sentenced him to 99 years without benefits on each robbery count, with the sentences to run consecutively. The predicate offense, which qualified him as a habitual offender for nearly four centuries in prison without parole, was a conviction for issuing worthless checks.

A permissible sentence under Louisiana's habitual offender sentencing scheme may still violate a defendant's constitutional right not to be subjected to excessive punishment. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La 1979). A sentence is unconstitutionally excessive under Article 1, § 20 of the Louisiana Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution if it makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment or amounts to nothing more than the purposeful imposition of pain and suffering and is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La.1993); State v. Johnson, 709 So.2d 672 (La 1998).

Robbery is a serious crime, but Mr. Dempsey did not hurt anyone. Many people who have committed horrible, repeated sexual assaults, who have killed, or who have deliberately violently injured multiple people are serving significantly lower sentences than this defendant. No human being is physically capable of serving a sentence of 396 years in prison. Therefore there is no way for Mr. Dempsey to ever pay his debt to society. This sentence is absurd. It makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment. It is unconstitutional.

Hughes, J., would grant. Johnson, C.J., would grant and assigns reasons.