A Mandatory Minimum Sentence from Louisiana – not what the judge wanted to do, but was forced to impose

Is This Justice?

             Each week, Pennsylvania lawyers and judges receive the judicial decisions from the appellate courts. Before I continue, allow me to provide some background information. Judges at the trial level are not called the appellate court. The trial court in Pennsylvania is the court of common pleas. It is the only court where a record is maintained because we judges, in non-jury trials, or jurors in jury trials, are the finders of facts in each case. In other words, either a jury or a judge tries the case and renders a verdict. All disputes are litigated in the trial courts. This means that all evidence and arguments are presented in each and every trial. What do I mean by stating that we are the only court of record in Pennsylvania? The trial court records testimony, motions, exhibits and rulings on evidence all of which is reviewed by the appellate courts when an appeal is filed.

            Because appellate judges decide the appeals, we must continually learn what the recent law is by promptly reviewing these rulings. The appellate courts interpret the law and tell judges when the law changes.

            In addition to the decisions of the Pennsylvania Appellate Courts, judges also receive a listing of some appellate court cases decided outside the state. It is from this list that I will summarize a case that was decided in Louisiana last year that demonstrates yet again how rigid and unfair mandatory minimum sentences are. The defendant had prior convictions for drug sales and a robbery. Under the Louisiana state habitual offender law, the judge was mandated to sentence him to a term of life without parole. His crime that earned him this punishment: “selling 0.69 grams of marijuana to an undercover police officer, who solicited the sale while the defendant was in his own home minding his own business,” wrote a dissenting judge. The same judge described the case as one involving an “honorably discharged American veteran of Desert Storm, suffering from drug addiction, and unable to get medical help from the U.S. Veteran’s Administration.” State of Louisiana  v. Harris 13-133 (LACt. App, 3^rd Circ., Dec. 11, 2013)

            Desert Storm occurred in 1991. This man is probably in his early 40s, so life for him may be 30 to 40 more years. Is this fair? Who should be sentencing this man, the legislature or a judge?

            Thirty to forty years converts to a loss of well over $1 million to house, feed, and treat this inmate. His medical expenses will increase astronomically as he reaches old age, which in penitentiary prison time is 50 years old and over. Shouldn’t the judge have discretion to impose what is merited under the circumstances rather than just being mandated to impose what he may very well believe is not just?