The Louisiana Supreme Court last month upended a 2021 state law that empowered district attorneys to reconsider and reduce long prison sentences meted out to convicted individuals with previous felony convictions.
The 4-3 opinion handed down on Sept. 8 concluded that the law violated separation-of-powers provisions contained in the Louisiana constitution. The decision came down in a challenge to the law brought by state Attorney General Jeff Landry, who said that Senate Bill 186 enabled district attorneys to revisit sentences without adequate factual evidence.
“... The article unconstitutionally allows the judicial branch to exercise the governor’s exclusive pardon power and therefore violates the doctrine of separation of powers as found in” Article II of the state constitution, the high court said.
The 22nd Judicial District Court and the district attorney agreed in the case of inmate William Wayne Lee Jr. that his second-degree murder conviction should be downgraded to manslaughter and his previous life sentence vacated. Those decisions came in the wake of what the parties said was new evidence about how Lee’s victim died.
The high court’s decision reinstates the original conviction and sends the issue back to the district court for proceedings in keeping with the high court’s opinion.
Landry termed the decision a victory for crime victims.
““I am thankful our Supreme Court agreed, recognizing that district attorneys do not have the power to toss out final convictions of any defendant just because they feel like it,” Landry said in a statement provided to the Louisiana Record.
SB 186, authored by state Sen. Gary L. Smith Jr. (D-Norco) passed unanimously in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in 2021. The idea behind the bill was to reconsider sentences for some inmates who have served decades in prison, some for more minor crimes.
But it would have been reckless for “some rapists and murderers” to get their sentences reduced, according to Landry.
“Crime is ravaging our state,” Landry said, “and instead of doing more to increase public safety, some officials have been fueling the fire. I am proud to fight for crime victims, and today we ensured they receive the justice they were promised.”
Chief Justice John Weimer, however, dissented from the majority opinion, concluding that Landry’s writ application should have been dismissed. Several procedural issues should have prevented the court from even considering the merits of the case involving William Lee, Weimer said.
“First and foremost, the attorney general is seeking review of a district court judgment that had already become final …” he said in his dissent, adding that Landry’s challenge to the district court’s action came well after the 30-day time limit to file such an application with the Supreme Court. “... Equally fatal to the attorney general’s application is a lack of standing. .. The attorney general has a duty to uphold the laws as written and has no interest or right to test the constitutionality of a statute.”
Weimer also disagreed with the majority about the state constitutional issues raised about the article in question.
“Article 930.10 provides a post-conviction process that allows the state and defendant to negotiate a settlement regarding a conviction or sentence to prevent an injustice,” he wrote. “Any such agreement must be approved by the district court following a hearing. Nothing in this procedure infringes on the governor’s exclusive power of pardon or commutation.”