Background
Ahkeem Jamal Wiggins, Jr. was convicted of battery of a pregnant dating partner and battery of a dating partner by strangulation. The convictions arose from an incident in which Wiggins grabbed his pregnant dating partner by the neck, lifted her off the ground, strangled her, and threatened to kill her and her unborn child. Video recordings captured part of the attack and threats.
While his appeal from the convictions was pending, the State charged Wiggins as a fourth-felony offender. His predicate convictions included armed robbery and contraband- and synthetic-cannabinoid-related offenses committed while incarcerated. The trial court vacated his original three-year terms and imposed the mandatory minimum of 20 years at hard labor on each count, consecutively, without benefits of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Wiggins had not clearly and convincingly shown that the mandatory 20-year sentence on either count was constitutionally excessive. His prior record included two violent offenses—armed robbery and dating-partner battery by strangulation—and he committed the present offenses while on parole for armed robbery. The court concluded that the mandatory minimum terms did not shock the sense of justice.
The court also upheld the decision to make the two terms consecutive. The record supported that result because of the dangerousness of the offenses, Wiggins’s repeat-felony history, his continued criminal conduct while incarcerated, and his failure to benefit from prior opportunities for rehabilitation. But it amended the sentences to remove the denial of parole eligibility: neither underlying battery statute nor the habitual-offender statute barred parole, although the habitual-offender law barred probation and suspension of sentence.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory habitual-offender minimums are presumed constitutional, and a defendant must make a clear and convincing showing of exceptional circumstances to obtain a downward departure.
- Consecutive terms remained justified by the record despite the offenses arising from the same encounter and involving one victim.
- Louisiana’s habitual-offender statute bars probation and suspension of sentence, but does not independently eliminate parole eligibility.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the high threshold for challenging a mandatory habitual-offender minimum as excessive, particularly where the defendant has a serious and persistent criminal history. It also confirms that sentencing courts must not add a parole restriction unless a governing statute authorizes it.