State v. Hamilton
State v. Hamilton, 370 So. 2d 874 (La. 1979).
Cited by
- State of Louisiana v. Terry Lemaire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
- State of Louisiana v. Russell McCutheon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
- State v. Rose 250 So. 3d 1236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
- Southern Message Serv. v. LA. PUBLIC SERV. COM'N 554 So. 2d 47 La. 1989
- State v. Stovall 541 So. 2d 1009 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
- Southern Message Service, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission 520 So. 2d 734 La. 1988
- State v. DeHart 445 So. 2d 419 La. 1984
- State v. Beasley 438 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
- State v. Thom 438 So. 2d 208 La. 1983
- State v. Clayton 427 So. 2d 827 La. 1983
- Southern Message Service, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission 426 So. 2d 606 La. 1983
- So. Message Serv. v. La. Pub. Serv. Com'n 426 So. 2d 606 La. 1983
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Ferina 351 So. 2d 1200
- State v. Morris 328 So. 2d 65
Opinion text
370 So.2d 874 (1979) STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph HAMILTON and Frances M. Harvey. No. 63516. Supreme Court of Louisiana. April 19, 1979. Rehearing Denied May 21, 1979. Bernard Jack Usprich, New Orleans, for Frances M. Harvey. Larry Williams, New Orleans, for Joseph Hamilton. William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Thomas Chester, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee. PER CURIAM. Defendants Joseph Hamilton and Frances M. Harvey were jointly charged by grand jury indictment with possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of La.R.S. 40:966. On December 8, 1977, after trial before a jury of twelve persons, each defendant was found guilty as charged. Subsequently they were sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor. Motions to appeal the convictions and sentences were filed on behalf of both defendants. While the appeal was pending, defendant Hamilton died. Thus the prosecution against him is abated. State v. Ferina, 351 So.2d 1200 (La.1977); State v. Morris, 328 So.2d 65 (La.1976). With respect to defendant Harvey, we have carefully reviewed the four assignments of error urged on her behalf and find that they do not form the basis for a reversal of her conviction and sentence. Accordingly, as to defendant Hamilton, the appeal is dismissed, the judgment of conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the indictment. As to defendant Harvey, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.