State of Louisiana v. Clay Landis Riggs

Judgment rendered February 12, 2025.

No. 55,736-KA
No. 55,954-KA
(Consolidated Cases)

ON REHEARING

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

CLAY LANDIS RIGGS Appellant

*****

On Rehearing
Originally Appealed from the
Eighth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Winn, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 45,329 and 45,550

Honorable Anastasia Stacy Wiley, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Peggy J. Sullivan

CLAY LANDIS RIGGS Pro Se

RICHARD CHRISTOPHER NEVILS Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

STEVEN D. CREWS
MATTHEW S. KELLEY
COLE B. SMITH
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before STONE, STEPHENS, THOMPSON, HUNTER,
and ELLENDER, JJ.

STEPHENS, J. concurs with written reasons.

ELLENDER, J., dissents with written reasons.

THOMPSON, J., dissents for the reasons expressed by J. Ellender.

STONE, J.

This criminal appeal arises from the Eighth Judicial District Court, the

Honorable Anastasia Wiley presiding. The defendant is Clay L. Riggs

(“Riggs”). He was convicted of aggravated flight from an officer pursuant to

La. R.S. 14:108.1 and subsequently was adjudicated a fourth felony

offender. Thereupon, the trial court sentenced Riggs to life imprisonment.

In this appeal Riggs contends only that his sentence exceeds constitutional

limitations.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 30, 2022, an officer observed Riggs’ SUV speeding on a

gravel road. The officer activated his blue lights. Riggs fled, leading

officers on a “high-speed”1 chase on rural roads, which were largely

unpaved and were subject to varying speed limits of no more than 30 miles

per hour. The video of the chase demonstrates that it lasted over 19 minutes,

involved slogging through muddy stretches, and wound through wooded

areas. The chase ended when Riggs attempted to cross a narrow wooden

bridge in his SUV, but Riggs’ vehicle fell off the bridge and flipped. Riggs

did all of this with three passengers in the SUV.

As previously mentioned, Riggs was convicted of aggravated flight

from an officer pursuant to La. R.S. 14:108.1 and sentenced to the maximum

for that offense, i.e., five year’s imprisonment at hard labor.2 Subsequently,

he was adjudicated a fourth felony offender, which the trial court found

increased the sentencing range to a minimum of 20 years and a maximum of

1
The officer’s dash cam footage shows that speeds varied widely, but only briefly
exceeded 70 miles per hour.
2
This offense is defined as a “crime of violence.” La. R.S. 14:2(B)(39).

life imprisonment.3 After a presentence investigation (in which Riggs

refused to participate), the trial court sentenced Riggs to life in prison. The

trial court issued written reasons for the sentence, noting Riggs’ extensive

criminal history, past failures in probation, lack of intent to stop committing

crimes, and the fact that there were others present in the car with him during

the chase.

Riggs did not file a motion to reconsider the sentence. He now

appeals, arguing only that his sentence is constitutionally excessive. The

state filed a brief pointing out that Riggs is a so-called “sovereign citizen,”

i.e., he believes that the law does not apply to him, and that Riggs has at

least ten felony convictions.

DISCUSSION

Error patent

An illegal sentence4 is an error patent, and therefore may be vacated

and corrected at any time. La. C. Cr. P. art. 882; State v. Boowell, 406 So.

2d 213, 215 (La. 1981). As previously stated, the defendant’s maximum

possible sentence for the instant offense (without habitual offender

adjudication) is five years. La. R.S. 14:108.1. The predicate offenses are

two convictions of attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon

(La. R.S. 14:27 and 14:95.1) and one conviction of possession of

methamphetamine (La. R.S. 40:967). The trial court, in its written reasons

3
The predicate convictions are: (1) attempted possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon; La. R.S. 14:27 & 14:95.1 (February 5, 2009); (2) same (November 27,
2017); (3) possession of methamphetamine; La. R.S. 40:967 (September 21, 2016).
4
An “illegal sentence” is a sentence that is “not authorized by the statute or
statutes which govern the penalty for the crime of conviction.” State v. Williams, 23-0765
(La. App. 4 Cir. 12/11/23), 382 So. 3d 1018, writ denied, 24-00081 (La. 4/16/24), 383 So.
3d 144.

2

for sentence, indicated that it was applying La. R.S. 15:529.1(A)(4)(a) in

determining that the sentencing range is imprisonment of a minimum of 20

years to a maximum of the remainder of the defendant’s natural life.

La. R.S. 15:529.1(A)(4) contains three separate provisions for

determining the applicable sentencing range; which provision (or provisions)

applies depends on certain circumstances. The instant case falls under both

La. R.S. 15:529.1(A)(4)(a) and La. R.S. 15:529.1(A)(4)(b).5 These

provisions state:

(4) If the fourth or subsequent felony is such that,
upon a first conviction the offender would be punishable
by imprisonment for any term less than his natural life
then the following sentences apply:
(a) The person shall be sentenced to imprisonment
for the fourth or subsequent felony for a determinate term
not less than the longest prescribed for a first conviction
but in no event less than twenty years and not more than
his natural life.
(b) If the fourth felony and no prior felony is
defined as a crime of violence under R.S. 14:2(B) or as a
sex offense under R.S. 15:541, the person shall be
imprisoned for not less than twenty years nor more than
twice the longest possible sentence prescribed for a first
conviction. If twice the possible sentence prescribed for a
first conviction is less than twenty years, the person shall
be imprisoned for twenty years.

The instant offense, aggravated flight from an officer (La. R.S.

14:108.1), is a “crime of violence.” La. R.S. 14:2(B)(39). None of the

predicate offenses are crimes of violence or sex offenses. Therefore,

subparagraph (b), by its terms, applies and dictates a sentence of twenty

years while, simultaneously, subparagraph (a) applies and dictates a

sentencing range of a minimum of 20 years to a maximum of the remainder

of the defendant’s natural life.

5
Hereinafter, “subparagraph (a)” and “subparagraph (b).”
3

In State v. Newton, 42,743 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/19/07), 973 So. 2d 916,

921, writ denied, 08-1147 (La. 1/16/09), 998 So. 2d 90, this court stated:

In the absence of express legislative intent, principles of
lenity require that any ambiguity in a sentencing statute be
resolved in favor of the defendant. State v. Burns, 29,632
(La. App. 2d Cir. 9/24/97), 699 So. 2d 1179.
The rule of lenity applies not only to interpretations of the
substantive ambit of criminal laws, but also to the
penalties imposed by those laws. When a criminal statute
provides inconsistent penalties, the rule of lenity directs
the court to impose the least severe penalty. State v.
Campbell, 2003–3035 (La. 7/6/04), 877 So. 2d 112.

It strikes the court as quite odd that the legislature would (under

subparagraph (b)) be more lenient toward a defendant whose instant offense

is a crime of violence—i.e., more lenient than toward defendants with no

crimes of violence (subparagraph (a)). However, we find no “express

legislative intent” that resolves the inconsistency. To render subparagraph

(b) inapplicable in this case, it would be necessary for us to, in effect, rewrite

that provision of the legislation; moreover, if we did so, Riggs’ sentencing

exposure would be severely increased. Such is not the province of the

judiciary, with or without supposed “express legislative intent.” Therefore,

Riggs’ sentence of life imprisonment is illegal, regardless of whether it is

constitutionally prohibited as “cruel or unusual.”

Cruel or unusual

By failing to file a motion to reconsider sentence, Riggs has waived

his right to have the sentence reviewed for compliance with La. C. Cr. P. art.

894.1. The sole remaining question in this appeal is whether his sentence

exceeds the punishment allowed by the state and federal constitutions. The

Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 20, of

the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of cruel or excessive

4

punishment. Although a sentence falls within statutory limits, it may be

excessive. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So. 2d 762 (La. 1979). The appellate

court must determine if the sentence is constitutionally excessive. State v.

Smith, 01-2574 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So. 2d 1. A sentence is unconstitutionally

excessive when it imposes punishment grossly disproportionate to the

severity of the offense or constitutes nothing more than needless infliction of

pain and suffering. State v. Bonanno, 384 So. 2d 355 (La. 1980); State v.

Smith, supra. The relevant question is whether the trial court abused its

broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been

more appropriate. State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So. 2d 957,

cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043, 117 S. Ct. 615, 136 L. Ed. 2d 539 (1996). A

sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and

punishment are viewed in light of the harm done to society, it shocks the

sense of justice. State v. Weaver, 01-0467 (La. 1/15/02), 805 So. 2d 166;

State v. Meadows, 51,843 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/18), 246 So. 3d 639, writ

denied, 18-0259 (La. 10/29/18), 254 So. 3d 1208. The sentencing court has

wide discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory limits, and the

sentence imposed will not be set aside as excessive absent a manifest abuse

of that discretion. State v. Williams, 03-3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So. 2d 7.

In this case, we find that Riggs’ life sentence exceeds what is

constitutionally permissible. It shocks the sense of justice for a person to be

subjected to such punishment for leading the police on a chase through a

rural, unpopulated area. That crime, alone, would have exposed Riggs to a

maximum of five years of incarceration. His mandatory sentence of 20

years under subparagraph (b), supra, thus quadruples the maximum sentence

for Riggs’ violation of La. R.S. 14:108.1. Riggs’ violation of La. R.S.
5

14:108.1 was not the worst of such offenses. Because the offense of

conviction adequately reflects the wrongful nature of Riggs’ conduct, and

his violation of La. R.S. 14:108.1 is not the worst of such violations,

imprisonment beyond quadruple the maximum is nothing but a purposeless

infliction of pain and suffering. At the end of his 20-year term, Riggs will

be approximately 73 years old. Even an offender as recalcitrant as Riggs has

a significant prospect of non-recidivism at such an age.

CONCLUSION

Riggs’ conviction for violation of La. R.S. 14:108.1 and his

adjudication as a fourth felony offender are AFFIRMED. Riggs’ sentence is

VACATED and this matter is REMANDED for resentencing in accordance

with this opinion.

6

STEPHENS, J., concurring,

While I agree with Judges Ellender and Thompson that the trial court

correctly applied La. R.S. 15:529.1(A)(4)(a) in determining the sentencing

range applicable to this case, I find, as did Judges Stone and Hunter, that the

sentence imposed in this case is unconstitutionally excessive. Though a

fourth felony offender, the defendant is not the “worst type of offender,” nor

is he deserving of a maximum sentence, which, in this case, as a fourth

felony offender, is life imprisonment.

1

ELLENDER, J, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Initially, I do not agree La. R.S. 15:529.1

(A)(4)(b) applies to this case. Contrary to the majority’s reading, this

subsection applies only if neither the crime of conviction nor any of the prior

felonies is defined as a crime of violence. See, e.g., State v. Brown, 19-695

(La. App. 3 Cir. 5/6/20), 297 So. 3d 947, writ denied, 20-00713 (La.

9/29/20), 301 So. 3d 1194. Obviously, Riggs’s crime of conviction,

aggravated flight from an officer, is defined as a crime of violence. La. R.S.

14:2 (B)(39). I am unaware of any reported case supporting the majority’s

view that the statute is ambiguous and subsection 529.1 (A)(4)(b) somehow

applies. Consequently, I believe the trial court was correct in applying R.S.

15:529.1 (A)(4)(a) and determining Riggs’s sentencing range was 20 years

to life.

As for the life sentence imposed, I do not agree it is unconstitutionally

excessive. The emphasis of the majority is that the offense of conviction

occurred in a rural, unpopulated area, and that the maximum sentence he

could have received under R.S. 14:108.1 was five years at hard labor. While

this chase did occur primarily on unpopulated, rural Forest Service roads, it

was not a minor incident. Riggs ultimately flipped and crashed his SUV off

a narrow, wooden bridge and into a creek, with three occupants in the

vehicle. At least one of his passengers hit her head on the windshield and

told officers she “was scared and cold and wet” once pulled from the

overturned SUV. Not only did Riggs put his life and that of the pursuing

officer in danger, but also the lives of his three passengers.

The majority also gives inadequate weight to Riggs’s significant

criminal history and his defiant insistence that the laws of our state do not

1

apply to him. As pointed out by Judge Wiley in her detailed written

sentencing reasons, Riggs is at least an eight-time felony offender, with prior

crimes including not only those used to adjudicate him a fourth felony

offender, but also convictions for simple burglary (twice), aggravated

battery, theft, simple assault, and simple battery. Some of these offenses

were committed while on probation or parole, resulting in revocation.

Parenthetically, two of the predicate offenses used to support Riggs’s

adjudication as a multiple offender, attempted possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon, were redesignated, shortly after the offense of conviction, as

crimes of violence. 2022 La. Acts No. 702 (effective June 18, 2022). In

these circumstances, the life sentence would now be mandatory. La. R.S.

15:529.1 (A)(4)(c). This places Judge Wiley’s sentencing choice in a

favorable perspective.

At 53 years old, Riggs is not a youthful offender and, in spite of a life

of crime spanning from 1992 to the present resulting in long stretches of

incarceration, he continues to believe the laws of this state do not apply to

him. It is one thing to file a multitude of pleadings challenging “corporate

existence” as a so-called “sovereign citizen,” but it is quite another to

habitually defy our criminal laws and refuse to accept responsibility for

one’s actions. By his words and deeds, Riggs has steadfastly demonstrated

his utter refusal to ever become a law-abiding citizen.

On review, an appellate court does not determine whether another

sentence may have been more appropriate, but whether the trial court abused

its discretion. State v. Fruge, 14-1172 (La. 10/14/15), 179 So. 3d 579. I

believe this record supports Judge Wiley did not abuse her vast sentencing

2

discretion within the statutory limits. For these reasons, I respectfully

dissent.

3