State Of Louisiana v. Cardell Demond Robinson

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 24, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
CARDELL DEMOND ROBINSON
No.2019-KP-01330
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Cardell Demond Robinson - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of
Certiorari, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) 11-
10-0063, Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2019KW0690;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 24, 2020
Writ application granted. Reversed and remanded. See per curiam.
Weimer, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
JDH
BJJ
SJC
JTG
JBM
11/24/2020 “See News Release 046 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.”

11/24/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2019-KP-1330
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
CARDELL ROBINSON
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,
FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
PE
R CURIAM
Writ granted. In 2011, Defendant, Cardell Robinson , was convicted of
possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of La. R.S. 40:966. He
was subsequently adjudicated a four-time habitual offender and given the then-
mandatory sentence of life imprisonment pursuant to La. R.S. 15:529.1.1
Counsel for Mr. Robinson filed a motion to reconsider the sentence . It is at
this stage that Mr. Robinson could have asked the trial court to declare his sentence
excessive under Article I, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution even though it
fell within the statutory limits provided by the Legislature. State v. Johnson, 97-1906
(La. 3/4/98); 709 So.2d 672, 676; State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 767 (La. 1979).
In State v. Dorthey , we held that this power extends to the minimum sentences
mandated by the Habitual Offender Law and that the trial court must reduce a
defendant's sentence to one not constitutionally excessive if the trial court finds that
the sentence mandated by the Habitual Offender Law “makes no measurable
contribution to acceptable goals of punishment” or is nothing more than “the
1 In 2017, the Louisiana Legislature passed ameliorative amendments to the Habitual Offender
Law, such that, if he were convicted today, Mr. Robinson would not be subject to a mandatory
minimum life sentence, but rather a minimum 20-year sentence. La. R.S. 15:529.1(A)(4)(b).

2

purposeful imposition of pain and suffering” and “is grossly out of proportion to the
severity of the crime.” 623 So.2d 1276, 1280 –81 (La. 1993). However, when he
argued the motion to reconsider the sentence, Mr. Robinson’s counsel was unaware
of our holding in Dorthey, and, therefore, did not seek a downward departure on the
basis that a life sentence would be excessive. Due to counsel’s error, the trial court
did not consider whether a downward departure was warranted, and the trial record
was not fully developed with regard to this question. The trial court denied the
motion to reconsider.
The undeveloped trial record prevented the appellate court from performing a
meaningful Dorthey analysis. Thus, the court of appeal upheld the sentence after
performing a review much like that when a bare claim of excessiveness is before an
appellate court. State v. Robinson, 12-1731, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/26/13) (unpub’d),
available at 2013 WL 1791051, writ denied, 13-1234 (La. 11/22/13), 126 So.3d 480.
In 2018, Mr. Robinson subsequently challenged the life sentence in a motion
to correct illegal sentence. At that time , Mr. Robinson was barred from raising a
claim of ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel on collateral review pursuant
to our earlier holdings in State ex rel. Melinie v. State , 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665
So.2d 1172 and State v . Cotton, 09 -2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030. The trial
court granted the motion to correct illegal sentence on April 22, 2019, and the court
of appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling on July 22, 2019. These proceedings
occurred before our recent decision in State v. Harris, where we held that an
“ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing claim is cognizable on collateral
review.” 18-1012, p. 1 (La. 7/9/20), — So.3d —, available at 2020 WL 3867207.
Accordingly, because this case has never been evaluated by any court in light of our
decision in Harris, and because Mr. Robinson has presented a prima facie claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing meriting an evidentiary hearing, we
grant Mr. Robinson’s writ application. The ruling of the court of appeal is reversed,

3

and the matter is remanded to the district court to reconsider its ruling in light of
Harris and conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim of ineffective a ssistance of
counsel at sentencing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED