2001-K-0329 Precedential Processed

State v. Campbell

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed November 2, 2001 · 799 So. 2d 1136

Cited by

Followed in 1

State of Louisiana Versus Brett H Elmer La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State v. Clement 101 So. 3d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Fullilove 81 So. 3d 809 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Turner 75 So. 3d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Caccioppo 61 So. 3d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Richardson 33 So. 3d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Fontenberry 27 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Smith 1 So. 3d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Thomas 983 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Arabie 982 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Walton 957 So. 2d 133 La. 2007
State v. Nicholas 958 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007

all 21 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Guzman 769 So. 2d 1158

Opinion text

799 So.2d 1136 (2001) STATE of Louisiana v. David CAMPBELL. No. 2001-K-0329. Supreme Court of Louisiana. November 2, 2001. PER CURIAM. Granted in part; denied in part. The decision of the court of court of appeal is vacated to the extent that it sets aside respondent's guilty pleas to two counts of attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of La. R.S. 14:27; 14:95.1, and one count of aggravated battery, in violation of La. R.S. 14:34. An appellate court should refrain from employing errors patent review to set aside guilty pleas about which the defendant makes no complaint and which resulted in dispositions of the cases favorable to the defendant. State v. Guzman, 99-1528, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), 769 So.2d 1158, 1162 (discouraging the practice in "recently encountered cases in which an intermediate court reversed a conviction, arising from a plea bargain, based on an error that the defendant deliberately chose not to raise because *1137 the defendant was satisfied with the plea bargain."). In the present case, on his three guilty pleas, defendant received concurrent terms of nine months imprisonment at hard labor with credit for time served, essentially a sentence to time served from the date of his arrest to the date of his guilty pleas. We find no indication that those guilty pleas were conditioned on the outcome of defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, La. R.S. 40:967(B)(1), about which he did complain on appeal. The court of appeal set aside that conviction on grounds that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. We find no error in that aspect of the court of appeal's opinion. While we do not endorse that court's discussion of whether the state satisfied its burden at the multiple offender hearing of negating the 10 year cleansing period provided by La. R.S. 15:529.1(C), with respect to defendant's 1983 manslaughter conviction, that issue has been rendered moot by reversal of the underlying cocaine conviction. Accordingly, in all other respects the state's application is denied.