Opinion
18-KP-0130
01-14-2019
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. LATELLAS DELANIO MOORE
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF BOSSIER Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
I agree with the denial of this application, because defendant's excessiveness claim is not cognizable on collateral review. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172 (per curiam) ("La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 930.3, which sets out the exclusive grounds for granting post-conviction relief, provides no basis for review of claims of excessiveness or other sentencing error post-conviction."). I write separately to note, however, that though I agree the defendant has earned a substantial sentence, in my view, the sentence of 20 years hard labor as a multiple offender, where the defendant has no convictions of crimes of violence and the conviction at issue arises from marijuana charges, is excessive. As I have repeatedly stated, use of the Habitual Offender Law by prosecutors should be cautiously exercised with discretion. See, e.g., State v. Ellison, 18-0053 (La. 10/29/18), 255 So. 3d 568 (in dissent) (collecting cases). See also State v. Ladd, 14-1622 (La. 3/27/15), 164 So. 3d 184 (Knoll, J., additionally concurring and Crichton, J., additionally concurring for the reasons assigned by Justice Knoll) ("In view of the defendant's non-violent criminal record and the sentencing court's imposition of twenty years without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence under the Habitual Offender Law, this sentence on its face seems very harsh.").