DocketNumber: NO. 2018-KA-0835
Citation Numbers: 267 So. 3d 644
Judges: Ledet
Filed Date: 3/27/2019
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/29/2022
In this criminal appeal, the appellant, Duane Henry, appeals his sentence of life imprisonment with the benefit of parole. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 28, 1993, Mr. Henry and Joshua Williams murdered Todd Perry. At the time of the offense, Mr. Henry was sixteen years old. He and Mr. Williams were indicted for first degree murder and convicted of second degree murder. On September 30, 1994, the district court imposed on both of them the statutorily-mandated sentence of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole. On appeal, their convictions and sentences were affirmed. State v. Williams , 96-0131 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/17/97),
In 2012, the United States Supreme Court held that "the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders." Miller v. Alabama ,
Mr. Henry then petitioned the federal courts for a writ of habeas corpus . During the pendency of his petition, the United States Supreme Court held that Miller applies retroactively. Montgomery v. Louisiana , --- U.S. ----,
*646Henry v. Cain , No. 15-5011 (E.D. La. Nov. 28 2016),
After a Miller hearing, the state district court sentenced Mr. Henry to life imprisonment with the benefit of parole. The district court denied his motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed.
ERRORS PATENT
Pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 920, we have reviewed the record for errors patent and find none.
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, Mr. Henry's appellate counsel represents that that "[a]fter a conscientious and thorough review of the trial court record, [he] can find no non-frivolous issue to raise on appeal and can find no ruling of the trial court that arguably supports the appeal." Accordingly, Mr. Henry's appellate counsel moves to withdraw, citing Anders v. California ,
Pursuant to the procedure outlined in State v. Benjamin ,
Nonetheless, Mr. Henry moved for, and was granted, leave to file a supplemental brief. Mr. Henry assigns six errors.
Pro Se Supplemental Assignment of Error 1
Mr. Henry asserts that the district court "violated the Supremacy Clause and the Eighth Amendment when it disobeyed a constitutional command recognized by the Supreme Court." Essentially, Mr. Henry contends that the district court erred in sentencing him to life imprisonment because Miller and Montgomery forbid life sentences for juvenile offenders.
Mr. Henry's argument is premised on a mistaken reading of Miller and Montgomery . Neither case held that the federal constitution forbids a sentence of life imprisonment for juveniles; rather, as noted elsewhere in this opinion, the Supreme Court in Miller held only that "the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders,"
In this case, the district court sentenced Mr. Henry to life imprisonment with the benefit of parole-a sentence unquestioned by either Miller or Montgomery . This assignment of error is without merit.
Pro Se Supplemental Assignment of Error 2
Mr. Henry asserts that the district court "imposed a rehabilitation rationale as punishment instead of a penalty prescribed by the Louisiana Legislature." Essentially, Mr. Henry contends that, because Miller invalidated life sentences for juvenile offenders, the district court was required to *647impose a determinate sentence. As discussed elsewhere in this opinion, however, Miller did not invalidate life sentences for juvenile offenders; thus, Louisiana courts have rejected this argument.
Pro Se Supplemental Assignments of Error 3 and 4.
Mr. Henry asserts that the district court "denied [him] 'fair notice' protection when it imposed the 'unforeseeable and retroactive judicial expansion' of [La.] R.S. 15:574.4(E) in place of the penalty invalidated by Miller ." Mr. Henry also asserts that the district court "violated the Ex Post Facto Clause when it applied a legislative enactment not in existence at the time this offense occurred to the defendant at sentencing." Essentially, Mr. Henry contends that because La. R.S. 15:574.4 -which governs the timing of parole eligibility for juvenile offenders-was enacted after his crime, retroactive application of the limitations set forth in the statute violates his constitutional right to due process and the protection against the ex post facto application of law. Louisiana courts have rejected these arguments.
Pro Se Supplemental Assignments of Error 5 and 6
Mr. Henry asserts that, because the district court "fail[ed] to fashion an 'individualized sentence,' " the district court "imposed an excessive sentence in violation of [the] Eighth Amendment and the La. Constitution Article I, § 20." It is, however, well settled that the only relief available at a Miller hearing is a determination of whether the previously-imposed life sentence is to be served with or without the benefit or parole.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's sentence is affirmed. Appellate counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
We address Mr. Henry's assignments of error, which are unnumbered, in an order conducive to our analysis.
Notably, in Montgomery , the Supreme Court reiterated that a juvenile offender may still be sentenced-after a hearing and in an appropriate case-to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
See generally State v. Graham , 14-1769, pp. 11-12 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/24/15),
See, e.g. , State v. Young , 18-0564 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/5/18) (unpub. ),
See Montgomery,