State Of Louisiana v. Eddie Matthews, III
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., November 5, 2025
State Of Louisiana v. Eddie Matthews, III, No. 2025 KW 0805 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. Oct. 6, 2025).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- 286 So. 3d 407 not in our corpus
- State v. Parker 871 So. 2d 317
- State v. Johnson 884 So. 2d 568
Opinion text
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2025 KW 0805
VERSUS
EDDIE JOSEPH MATTHEWS, III OCTOBER 6, 2025
In Re: Eddie Joseph Matthews, III, applying for supervisory
writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St.
Tammany, No. 553826.
BEFORE : McCLENDON, C.J., GREENE AND STROMBERG, JJ.
WRIT DENIED. It is well-settled that the law in effect at
the time of the offense is determinative of a defendant’s
punishment, including for habitual offender proceedings. See
State v. Lyles, 2019-00203 (La. 10/22/19), 286 So.3d 407, 409 (per
curiam) (citing State v. Parker, 2003-0924 (La. 4/14/04), 871 So.2d
317, 327). In State v. Johnson, 2003-2993 (La. 10/19/04), 884
So.2d 568, 578, superseded by statute on other grounds, Butler v.
Cain, 327 Fed.Appx. 455 (5th Cir. 2009), the Louisiana Supreme
Court expressly overruled its prior decision in Mims and held that
Act 688 of 1982 removed the sequential requirement of La. R.S.
15:529.1. The record shows that the felony being enhanced in this
2014 case, which was possession of methamphetamine, was committed
after the predicate convictions set forth in the multiple offender
bill of information. See La. R.S. 15:529.1(B). Furthermore, the
district court correctly applied the ten-year cleansing period to
compute the cleansing period in this case. Accordingly, the
district court did not err by dismissing the motion to correct an
illegal habitual offender sentence.
PMc
HG
TPS