Ricky Terrebonne v. Robert H. Butler, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary

848 F.2d 500 (5th Cir. 1988) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · June 20, 1988 · No. No. 86-3403

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the denial of Ricky Terrebonne's federal habeas petition. The court held that Louisiana's life-imprisonment sentence without parole for heroin distribution was not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment, although several judges dissented and concluded that the sentence was unconstitutional as applied to Terrebonne.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Writing for the Court
GEE, Circuit Judge; CLARK, Chief Judge; GEE; RUBIN; REAVLEY; POLITZ; KING; JOHNSON; WILLIAMS; GARWOOD; JOLLY; HIGGINBOTHAM; DAVIS; JONES; SMITH
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
June 20, 1988
Docket number
No. 86-3403
Procedural posture
Appeal from the denial of federal habeas corpus relief challenging a Louisiana life-without-parole sentence for distributing heroin on Eighth Amendment proportionality grounds.
Standard of review
De novo review of the constitutional proportionality issue presented in the federal habeas appeal.
Precedential value
Published, en banc federal appellate decision; precedential.
Parties
Ricky Terrebonne v. Robert H. Butler, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

cruel and unusual punishmentsentencingfederal habeas corpuspost-conviction reliefconstitutional law

Practice areas

Federal habeas corpusCriminal sentencingEighth Amendment constitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Terrebonne's life-imprisonment-without-parole sentence for distributing heroin was so grossly disproportionate to the offense as to violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
  2. Whether the federal court could grant relief based on the sentencing judges' alleged misunderstanding of available Louisiana sentencing alternatives when that issue had not been presented in the habeas petition or exhausted in state court.

Holdings

  1. Terrebonne's life-imprisonment-without-parole sentence for heroin distribution was not grossly disproportionate to his crime and therefore did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
  2. The court could not consider the alleged sentencing-error issue because it was not presented in the federal habeas petition and state remedies had not been exhausted.

Key quotations

Thus, it is perfectly consistent for us to conclude that according to our lights Terrebonne's punishment was too severe, was not well proportioned to his crime, but that according to the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment Terrebonne's punishment was not disproportionate. (848 F.2d at 507)
We cannot say the Louisiana legislature could not rationally conclude that heroin dealing is properly classified with such crimes as theirs; and, whatever Solem may mean as applied to lesser offenses such as those of Rummel or Helm, we do not believe the Court intended by it to put us in the business of second-guessing state legislatures as to the punishment of serious crimes—crimes such as dealing in heroin. (848 F.2d at 507)

Factual background

In 1975, at age 21, Terrebonne was a heroin addict whom two Jefferson Parish sheriff's agents and a paid informant asked to obtain heroin. He contacted his supplier, used funds provided by the agents to purchase 22 packets, and transferred 19 packets to the agents while retaining three. He was convicted of distributing heroin; the record also reflected prior convictions for burglary and theft by fraud, but no history of violence.

Procedural history

Terrebonne was convicted in Louisiana of distributing heroin and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. His sentence was initially reviewed by the Fifth Circuit, including in prior en banc proceedings, and he was resentenced in 1984 after a successful state-court challenge to the original sentencing procedure. The federal district court denied habeas relief, and the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc for the second time in the matter, affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…