82-KA-1722 Precedential Processed

State v. Huntsberry

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed October 17, 1983 · 439 So. 2d 432

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. Celestine 92 So. 3d 335 La. 2012
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. Watson 575 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Augustine 555 So. 2d 1331 La. 1990
State v. Coleman 544 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Yarls 527 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Smith 516 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987

all 14 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Huntsberry 409 So. 2d 555

Opinion text

439 So.2d 432 (1983) STATE of Louisiana v. Steven HUNTSBERRY. No. 82-KA-1722. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 17, 1983. *433 William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Nathan Stansbury, Dist. Atty., Louis G. Garrott, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee. David Clarke, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant. PER CURIAM [*] . Defendant Steven Huntsberry was charged by bill of information with the crime of armed robbery, in violation of La. R.S. 14:64. On November 19, 1980, he was tried by a twelve person jury and found guilty as charged. He was thereafter sentenced to fifty 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. Huntsberry, 409 So.2d 555 (La.1982). On May 17, 1982, the trial judge again imposed a sentence of fifty years' imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Defendant again appeals, arguing that the sentence is still inadequately reasoned under La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 and that it is excessive. We find no merit in either of these arguments. Decree Accordingly, we affirm defendant's sentence. SENTENCE AFFIRMED. NOTES [*] Julian Bailes, Justice ad hoc sitting for Associate Justice Walter F. Marcus, Jr.