State Of Louisiana v. Emile Pierce

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 02, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
EMILE PIERCE
No. 2022-K-01743
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Emile Pierce - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish
of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Number(s) 99- 05283, Court of Appeal,
Fifth Circuit, Number(s) 22-KA-399;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 02, 2023
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., dissents and would grant and docket.
Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
McCallum, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Justice Crain.
JDH
SJC
JTG
PDG
05/02/2023 "See News Release 021 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2022-K-01743
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
EMILE PIERCE
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal,
Fifth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson
PER CURIAM
Writ granted. The court of appeal erred in vacating the sentence imposed by
the district court. State v. Pierce, 22-399 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/31/22), 351 So.3d 762.
The district court found that the mandatory minimum sentence require d by the
Habitual Offender law was unconstitutionally excessive as applied to this defendant.
The district court further found that a sentence of 22 years was the longest that would
not be constitutionally excessive under the circumstances. In finding defendant
failed to show that a downward departure below the mandatory minimum sentence
was justified in accordance with State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) and
subsequent jurisprudence, the court of appeal erred in giving inadequate deference
to the district court’s exercise of its discretion in sentencing.
Defendant was convicted in 2001 of armed robbery and sentenced to the term
statutorily mandated at that time for a third-felony habitual offender : life
imprisonment at hard labor without parole eligibility. He was resentenced in 2022
pursuant to State ex rel. Esteen v. State , 16 -0949 (La. 1/30/18), 239 So.3d 233 ,
because subsequent legislative action rendered the life sentence illegal. The district
court issued detailed reasons for its sentencing determination after conducting a
lengthy and comprehensive hearing. As described in a concurrence in previous
05/02/23

23-KK-0461

2
appellate review of these proceedings, “ The record reflects that the sentence was
imposed after a searching inquiry into and meani ngful assessment of facts and
circumstances that justify the exercise of judicial discretion with careful
consideration of the defendant and facts of the case in light of defendant’ s family
history, prior criminal conduct, and circumstances of La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1.” State
v. Pierce , 22 -154, p. 3 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/1/22), 349 So.3d 50, 55 (Wicker, J.,
concurring).
The court of appeal, however, found the district court in resentencing failed
to give adequate deference to the original sentencing determinatio n, in which the
statutorily mandated life sentence was imposed . As observed by the dissent in the
court below, the court of appeal’s emphasis on effectuating to the greatest extent
possible the originally imposed sentence fails to adequately consider that subsequent
legislative action rendered the originally imposed sentence illegal. See Pierce, 22-
399, pp. 11–12, 351 So.3d at 781–782 (Johnson, J., dissenting) . Accordingly, we
reverse the ruling of the court of appeal, which vacated the sentence imposed by the
district court and remanded for resentencing. We reinstate the sentence of 22 years
imprisonment at hard labor, which was imposed by the district court, and we affirm
that sentence as reinstated.
SENTENCE REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED