STATE v. HARRIS (2022)

Writ application denied.

Citing rationale from State v. Harris, 2018-1012 (La. 7/9/20), ––– So.3d ––––, 2020 WL 3867207, applicant in this post-conviction filing asserts that his counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigation evidence at sentencing. He alleges that this omission would have resulted in not only a more meaningful and tailored sentence, but also a lesser one. A ruling from this Court addressing the issues in Harris and any potential retroactivity of that decision would certainly be beneficial for lower courts in their application of La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. However, this case presents an inadequate vehicle to do so. Specifically, the applicant fails to show a prima facie case of ineffective assistance at sentencing, thereby distinguishing this matter from Harris and State v. Robinson, 19-1330 (La. 11/24/20), 2020 WL 6883289 (defendant sentenced to life imprisonment as a fourth felony habitual offender for a marijuana conviction; court found defendant made a sufficient showing that his attorney failed to argue for a downward departure from the mandatory minimum sentence as a habitual offender).

Hughes, J., recused. Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.