Opinion
NO. 2018 KW 0424
05-31-2018
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. MARCUS HARRIS
Office Of The Clerk
Rodd Naquin Clerk of Court
Notice of Judgment and Disposition
Docket Number: 2018 - KW - 0424 TO: Andrea Barient
Asst. Attorney General, Louis
PO Box 94005
Baton Rouge, La 70804 Jane Hogan
310 North Cherry Street
Hammond, LA 70401 Hon. Richard J. Ward Jr.
Iberville Parish
P.O. Drawer 880
Plaquemine, LA 70765-0880 Colin Clark
P.O. Box 94005
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
clarkc@ag.state.la.us Hon. Jeffrey Martin Landry
Attorney General
P.O. Box 94005
Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Hon. Alvin Batiste Jr.
58050 Meriam Street
P.O. Box 241
Plaquemine, LA 70765 In accordance with Local Rule 6 of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, I hereby certify that this notice of judgment and disposition and the attached disposition were transmitted this date to the trial judge or equivalent, all counsel of record, and all parties not represented by counsel.
/s/
RODD NAQUIN
CLERK OF COURT In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville, No. 34-98. BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., WELCH AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2469, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (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. The Louisiana Legislature designed an adequate solution to Miller by creating statutes relating to parole eligibility for juvenile homicide defendants which are to be read in conjunction with the murder statutes. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 878.1 & La. R.S. 15:574.4. To the extent that the respondent seeks an individualized sentencing hearing, Miller did not impose such a requirement in cases where parole eligibility was permitted. The respondent, who was sentenced to forty years at hard labor for a manslaughter conviction without restrictions on parole, is not serving a life sentence or its functional equivalent. Therefore, he has not been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to secure release as a regular part of the rehabilitative process. See Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2030, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). Thus, the respondent is not entitled to an individualized sentencing hearing. Furthermore, the instant case is distinguishable from State ex rel. Morgan v. State, 2015-0100 (La. 10/19/16), 217 So.3d 266. Therefore, the district court's decision to grant the respondent a resentencing hearing is reversed and this matter is remanded to the district court.
JEW
TMH
VGW
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT