Background
Keith Kisack received an enhanced life sentence after being adjudicated a fourth-felony offender. The triggering conviction was a 2014 conviction for possessing contraband—a cell phone—an offense then punishable by up to five years. Kisack maintained that he used the phone only to communicate with his attorney. His three predicate convictions were for illegal discharge of a firearm, aggravated battery, and possession of a firearm by a felon.
This was Kisack’s third appeal concerning reconsideration of his sentence. The Fourth Circuit had twice remanded because the district court failed to adequately apply Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 894.1. On the latest remand, the district court left the life sentence in place after stating generally that it had considered factors identified by the appellate court and prior trial courts.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit held that the life sentence was constitutionally excessive and an abuse of discretion. Although life imprisonment fell within the statutory range, it was the maximum available punishment and therefore should have been reserved for the most egregious offenders. The record did not establish aggravating circumstances showing that Kisack belonged in that category.
The district court could not justify the maximum sentence by relying on earlier sentencing proceedings that had themselves failed to properly apply the statutory factors and had produced sharply divergent sentences. Nor could it rely on Kisack’s arrest history without objective evidence that he committed the unadjudicated offenses. The State also identified no specific violence, victim harm, or security threat associated with the contraband conviction and no exceptional acts of violence connected to the predicate convictions.
The court vacated the life sentence and remanded for resentencing. It determined that 20 years—the statutory minimum for the fourth-felony-offender adjudication—was the longest sentence that would not be constitutionally excessive and directed the district court to consider a sentence not exceeding 20 years. Because that ruling resolved the appeal, the court did not address Kisack’s separate claim that the district court again failed to apply article 894.1.
Key Takeaways
- A sentence within the statutory range may still violate Louisiana’s constitutional prohibition against excessive punishment.
- Unadjudicated arrests cannot support a maximum sentence without evidence that the defendant actually committed the alleged offenses.
- The record did not show aggravating circumstances sufficient to classify Kisack as among the most egregious fourth-felony offenders.
- On remand, the district court must consider a sentence of no more than the 20-year statutory minimum.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that habitual-offender status does not automatically justify the harshest available sentence. Sentencing courts must ground an enhanced punishment in reliable evidence and circumstances specific to the defendant’s convictions, particularly when imposing life imprisonment.
It also illustrates the appellate court’s authority to provide concrete resentencing limits after finding a sentence unconstitutional. Here, the Fourth Circuit did more than order another sentencing hearing: it identified 20 years as the longest constitutionally permissible sentence on this record.