Summary
finding that the principles espoused in Dorothy apply to substantive criminal statutes as well as sentences under the Habitual Offender Law
Summary of this case from State v. GreenOpinion
No. 99-KP-1024
September 24, 1999
IN RE: Fobbs, Edward; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writ; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number 99KW-0073; Parish of Orleans Criminal District Court Div. "F" Number 396-527
Granted with order. See per curiam.
CDK
PFC
WFM
BJJ
JPV
JTK
LEMMON, J. not on panel.
TRAYLOR, J. dissents.
Granted. This case is remanded to the court of appeal for reconsideration on the merits of the trial court's determination that the mandatory minimum term without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence specified by La.R.S. 40:967 (B) (4) (b) for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute is excessive as applied to this particular offender. Our observation in State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276, 1280 (La. 1993), that "the review of sentencing, including sentencing under R.S. 15:529.1, is a long established function of the judicial branch," does not, nor did we intend it to, restrict the sentence review principles espoused in that decision solely to the mandatory minimum penalties provided by La.R.S. 15:529.1. See State v. Davis, 94-2332, pp. 11-12 (La.App. 1st Cir. 12/15/95), 666 So.2d 400, 407-08. As we explained in State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 766 (La. 1979), La. Const. Art. 1, § 20 provides "the basis for extending the court's control over the entire sentencing process." (emphasis added).
TRAYLOR, J. dissents.