Court Opinion

ID: 9477737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:29:58.666557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:01.229873
License: Public Domain

ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge,
with whom JOHNSON, Circuit Judge, joins dissenting:
I join in Judge Reavley’s dissent. Having, however, written the earlier en banc opinion that upheld Terrebonne’s sentence,1 I should explain why I have changed my mind. The reason is simple; whether or not Solem v. Helm2 is, as it purports to be, consistent with Rummel v. Estelle,3 Solem clearly broadens the scope of the Eighth Amendment fixed by Rummel.
While Terrebonne had two prior convictions and had a daily heroin habit that he likely could not support without turning to crime regularly,4 he dealt a small quantity of heroin in this case, procured it at the agents’ request with funds supplied by them, did so only to get a fix for himself, made no monetary profit from the transaction, did not seek to “push” the heroin, had no record of violence, and worked at least occasionally.
I agree that the Louisiana sentencing scheme, though inflexible, is constitutional on its face, for the reasons ably stated by my brother Gee. When, however, I apply Solem’s principles to this sentence, I conclude, as does my brother Reavley, that it is unconstitutional as applied to Terre-bonne, for confining him to prison for life without the possibility of parole is “significantly disproportionate to his crime, and is therefore prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.” 5

. Terrebonne v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 997 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc).

. 445 U.S. 263, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980); see Solem, 463 U.S. at 303 n. 32, 103 S.Ct. at 3017 n. 32.

. See Terrebonne, 646 F.2d at 1002.

. Solem, 463 U.S. at 303, 103 S.Ct. at 3016.