State v. Bamburg
State v. Bamburg, 772 So. 2d 356 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000).
Cited by
- State of Louisiana v. Desmond Deondre Scarborough La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
- State of Louisiana v. Fillmore Wright La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
- State of Louisiana v. Austin William Bost La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
- State of Louisiana v. Ezra J. Coutee, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
- State of Louisiana v. Ronald Watson and Stephen Watson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
- State of Louisiana v. Kelby Meaux A/K/A Kelby D. Meaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
- State of Louisiana v. Gerald Samuel La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
- Juanita W. Fontenot and T. June Wilder v. Gilchrist Construction Co., LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
- State of Louisiana v. Will Antonio Celestine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
- State v. Tutson 270 So. 3d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
- State of Louisiana v. Michael Ja'rel Tutson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
- State of Louisiana v. Zachary Alexander Bench La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Davis 702 So. 2d 1014
- State ex rel. Jackson v. State 726 So. 2d 919
- State v. Reeves 619 So. 2d 543
Opinion text
772 So.2d 356 (2000) STATE of Louisiana v. William R. BAMBURG. No. 00-675. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. November 2, 2000. Don M. Burkett, District Attorney, Many, LA, Counsel for the State. Lawrence C. Billeaud, Louisiana Appellate Project, Lafayette, LA, Counsel for Defendant. (Court composed of BILLIE COLOMBARO WOODARD, MARC T. AMY, and MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN, Judges.) SULLIVAN, Judge. On September 28, 1999, William Bamburg was convicted by a jury of attempted armed robbery in violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:64. On March 16, 2000, he was sentenced to serve five years at hard labor with credit for time served. He now seeks review of his sentence. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Defendant asserts that the trial judge inadvertently sentenced him to serve double the statutory minimum sentence when he actually intended to impose the minimum statutory sentence. Defendant failed to object orally at sentencing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence; therefore, his claim for excessiveness of sentence is barred. See La.Code Crim.P. art. 881.1. See also, State v. Davis, 97-331 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/29/97) ; 702 So.2d 1014 ; writ denied, 97-2990 (La.11/6/98); 726 So.2d 919 (citing State v. Reeves, 619 So.2d 543 (La.1993)). Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit. We note that the trial court did not impose Defendant's sentence without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence as mandated by La.R.S. 14:64. Previously, this would have been treated as an illegally lenient sentence. However, pursuant to the provisions of La.R.S. 15:301.1, which became effective August 15, 1999, the sentence imposed by the trial court is deemed to contain those provisions. Accordingly, Defendant's sentence of five years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence and with credit for time served is affirmed. AFFIRMED.