STATE OF LOUISIANA v. EMILE PIERCE (2023)

Defendant has not shown the sixty-six year minimum sentence required by the Habitual Offender Law is constitutionally excessive under the facts of his case. The minimum sentence is presumed constitutional, and no exceptional circumstances exist to justify departure from it here. See State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993).

The trial court erred in imposing a sentence less than the minimum mandated by law. While the defendant's age, education level, family problems, and substance abuse issues are all very unfortunate facts, I do not believe these circumstances make the defendant an exceptional case that permits a downward departure from the statutorily required sentence. Rather, the circumstances of this case are sadly common and could potentially describe many habitual offenders.

I agree with the appellate court's judgment. Defendant has not rebutted the presumption that the mandatory minimum sentence is constitutional. He also has not shown that his case involves rare circumstances. I am concerned that the majority's willingness to depart from the applicable statutory sentencing minimums eviscerates the high constitutional standard instructed by Dorthey and fails to give appropriate deference to the legislature's proscribed sentencing range. Accordingly, I dissent and would deny the writ application.

CRAIN, J., dissents and assigns reasons: