81-KA-2253 Precedential Affirmed Processed

State v. Walker

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed April 2, 1984 · 449 So. 2d 474

Also decided on this docket: La., May 28, 1982 414 So. 2d 1245

Cited by

State of Louisiana v. Patrick Seth Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Jones 229 So. 3d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Green 84 So. 3d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Lee 15 So. 3d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Thomas 719 So. 2d 49 La. 1998
State v. Myles 638 So. 2d 218 La. 1994
State v. Augustine 555 So. 2d 1331 La. 1990
State v. Ezernack 496 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
State v. Toomer 461 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Walker 414 So. 2d 1245

Opinion text

449 So.2d 474 (1984) STATE of Louisiana v. Leon WALKER. No. 81-KA-2253. Supreme Court of Louisiana. April 2, 1984. Rehearing Denied May 3, 1984. William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leon A. Picou, Jr., Dist. Atty., William E. Woodward, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee. Richard C. Howell, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant. CALOGERO, Justice. Defendant Leon Walker was charged by Grand Jury indictment with the crime of armed robbery, in violation of La.R.S. 14:64. He was tried by a twelve person jury and found guilty as charged. He was thereafter sentenced to thirty-five years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. On appeal originally, this Court affirmed his conviction, but upon finding that the trial judge failed to comply with the sentencing guidelines of La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, vacated the sentence and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing in accordance with law. State v. Walker, 414 So.2d 1245 (La.1982). On December 6, 1982, the trial judge again imposed a sentence of thirty-five years' imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Defendant again appeals, arguing that the sentence is excessive. We have reviewed the record of the sentencing proceedings on remand and find that the trial court has now adequately complied with the sentencing guidelines of La.C. Cr.P. art. 894.1 in articulating the reasons for the sentence imposed. Thus we find no merit in defendant's argument. *475 Decree Accordingly, we affirm defendant's sentence. SENTENCE AFFIRMED.