State v. Perez
State v. Perez, 966 So. 2d 820 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007).
Cited by
- Germain Dodson v. Master Lube Express Inc. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
- Lohenis v. Rousse 166 So. 3d 1020 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
- Politz v. Politz 149 So. 3d 805 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
- Rebecca Vallery, Et Ux. v. M. Lawrence Drerup La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
- Vallery v. Drerup 153 So. 3d 1168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
- Bolton v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 116 So. 3d 76 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
- Jackson v. Mayo 975 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Perez 966 So. 2d 813
Opinion text
966 So.2d 820 (2007) STATE of Louisiana v. Fay PEREZ, III. No. 07-238. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. October 3, 2007. Michael Harson, District Attorney, Ted L. Ayo, Assistant District Attorney, Abbeville, LA, for State of Louisiana. Mark O. Foster, Louisiana Appellate Project, Natchitoches, LA, for Defendant/Appellant, Fay V. Perez, III. Court composed of ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, MARC T. AMY, and MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN, Judges. SULLIVAN, Judge. For the reasons assigned in State v. Perez, 07-229 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/07) , 966 So.2d 813 , 2007 WL 2850578 , this matter is remanded to the trial court for another evidentiary hearing to determine whether the State's agreement to Defendant's plea was invalidated by vacation of the restitution to victims whose cases were dismissed. If the trial court imposes restitution as a condition of probation, it is instructed not to order restitution to a victim's insurer and to establish a determinate, specified payment plan for all fees and restitution amounts. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.