State Of Louisiana v. Joe Washington

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 16, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
JOE WASHINGTON
No. 2022-KP-00239
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN RE: Jo
e Washington - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) 03- 11-0290,
Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2021 KW 1044;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 16, 2022
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Crai
n, J., recused.
JTG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JBM
PDG
11/16/2022 "See News Release 050 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 22-KP-0239
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
J
OE WASHINGTON
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINETEENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
PE
R CURIAM:
G
ranted. Applicant’s enhanced sentence of mandatory life imprisonment at
hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence is illegal
under the pertinent sentencing provisions. See State v. Singleton , 352 So.2d 191
(La. 1977); see also State v. Zeigler, 41,617 ( La. App. 2 Cir. 12/20/06), 945 So.2d
946. S
pecifically, applicant’s 1974 simple burglary predicate offense was not
“punishable by imprisonment for twelve years or more” at the time he committed
that crime. Acts 1977, No. 133, § 1, which amended the penalty provision of La.
R.S. 14:62 to “with or without hard labor, for not more than twelve years,” did not
become effective until September 9, 1977. Therefore, under the applicable version
of La. R.S. 15:529.1 in effect when the applicant again committed simple burglary
in 2010, applicant should have been sentenced as a fourth felony offender to a term
of imprisonment “not less than the longest prescribed for a first conviction [of the
underlying offense] but in no event less than twenty years and not more than his
natural life.” Furthermore, pursuant to subsection (G) of the applicable version of
La. R.S. 15:529.1, such sentence should have been without benefit of probation or
suspension of sentence, but there should have been no restriction of parole
11/16/22

2

eligibility because the penalty provision of the underlying offense contained none.
Therefore, we vacate his enhanced sentence, and we remand to the district court for
resentencing consistent with this ruling.