State v. Moore

Summary

Justice Crichton additionally concurs in a Louisiana criminal case involving ineffective assistance of counsel and the habitual offender law's 10-year cleansing period. He concludes that the cleansing period had not elapsed because the defendant spent part of the period incarcerated, meaning counsel did not err in failing to challenge the habitual offender adjudication. He also discusses a split among Louisiana appellate circuits concerning whether the State must prove the cleansing period has not expired and whether the issue should be reviewed as an error patent.

Holdings

1. Counsel committed no error because the ten-year cleansing period had not elapsed after excluding Moore's time in penal institutions; therefore, counsel had no valid basis to contest the second-felony-offender adjudication.
2. A finding that counsel did not perform deficiently ends the Strickland inquiry and makes a separate prejudice analysis unnecessary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to establish that the habitual-offender statute's ten-year cleansing period had expired.
2. Whether time spent incarcerated must be excluded when calculating the habitual-offender cleansing period.
3. Whether the failure to prove expiration of the cleansing period should be reviewed as an error patent on the face of the record.

Disposition

other