2004-KP-1092 Precedential Processed

State v. Hotard

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed October 15, 2004 · 885 So. 2d 533

Cited by

State v. Stapleton 110 So. 3d 262 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Brown 63 So. 3d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Armstrong 47 So. 3d 1075 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Young v. Tigner 5 So. 3d 313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Mitchell 7 So. 3d 744 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Jackson 985 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Carey 975 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State of Louisiana v. D.R.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State of Louisiana v. Richard Ordner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Ordner 951 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Zeigler 945 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Mourra 940 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Avenal v. State 678 So. 2d 536
State v. Tate 747 So. 2d 519
State v. Wiggins 666 So. 2d 661
State v. Hudson 431 So. 2d 1050

Opinion text

885 So.2d 533 (2004) STATE of Louisiana v. Jason HOTARD. No. 2004-KP-1092. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 15, 2004. PER CURIAM. Writ granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded for resentencing. Because none of the statutes under which relator was convicted contains a provision prohibiting parole for the entire term, the district court pronounced illegal sentences when it ordered all of relator's terms of imprisonment to run in their entirety without benefit *534 of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. See St. Amant v. 19th J.D.C., 94-0567 (La.9/3/96), 678 So.2d 536 ; see also State v. Tate, 99-1483 (La.11/24/99), 747 So.2d 519 . In addition, because the district court has no role in determining eligibility for diminution of sentence pursuant to R.S. 15:571.3 ("good time") for the crime involved, the district court erred in pronouncing relator's habitual offender sentence without benefit of good time. State ex rel. Simmons v. Stalder, 93-1852 (La.1/26/96), 666 So.2d 661 . Also, the decision on whether a sentence arising from a probation revocation should run concurrently or consecutively with a sentence arising from a later offense lies with judge revoking probation. La.C.Cr.P. art. 901(C)(2); State ex rel. Holmes v. Maggio, 431 So.2d 1050, 1051 (La.1982). The district court is accordingly ordered to resentence relator to terms authorized under the statutes, and to issue corrected minute entries and commitment documents. In all other respects the application is denied.