State of Louisiana v. Jeremy Dillion

Summary

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit affirmed the adjudication of Jeremy Dillion as a quadruple felony offender and his resentencing to forty years for home invasion, concurrent with his six-month sentence for simple battery. The court held that the State sufficiently proved the predicate felony convictions, Dillion’s identity, and the applicable cleansing periods. The court also rejected his claims concerning delay in the habitual offender hearing, a right to jury determination of habitual offender status, and excessive sentencing, including on preservation grounds where applicable.

Holdings

1. The State sufficiently proved Dillion's status as a fourth felony offender even though it did not prove one alleged predicate conviction. The four other predicate felony convictions and Dillion's identity as the person convicted were established by competent evidence.
2. Attempted unauthorized use of a motor vehicle is a valid responsive verdict and may serve as a predicate felony conviction for habitual-offender enhancement.
3. The State presented sufficient evidence that the applicable cleansing periods had not expired between Dillion's predicate convictions and subsequent offenses.
4. The approximately two-year delay in holding the multiple-offender hearing did not violate Dillion's speedy-trial rights.
5. Dillion could not obtain appellate relief on his claim that he was entitled to a jury determination of multiple-offender status because he failed to raise the constitutional issue in the district court.
6. The forty-year sentence was not indeterminate or constitutionally excessive, and the district court's failure to specify whether it sentenced under La. R.S. 15:529.1(A)(4)(a) or (b) did not require relief because the sentence fell within the permissible range under either subsection.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State sufficiently proved Dillion's status as a fourth felony offender, including whether attempted unauthorized use of a motor vehicle was a valid predicate offense, whether the State had to prove the vehicle's value, whether Dillion's identity as the person previously convicted was established, and whether the applicable cleansing periods were satisfied.
2. Whether the approximately two-year delay between filing the habitual-offender bill and the multiple-offender hearing violated Dillion's speedy-trial rights.
3. Whether Dillion was entitled to have his multiple-offender status determined by a jury.
4. Whether the forty-year enhanced sentence was indeterminate or excessive because the district court did not identify the applicable habitual-offender statutory subsection or expressly discuss the sentencing factors.

Disposition

affirmed