State v. Desdunes
State v. Desdunes, 579 So. 2d 452 (La. 1991).
Cited by
- State of Louisiana v. Christopher J. Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
- State v. Brown 164 So. 3d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
- State v. McCormick 87 So. 3d 857 La. 2012
- Williams v. Cooper 945 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
- State of Louisiana v. Warren Fuselier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
- State v. Fuselier 885 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
- State v. Williams 800 So. 2d 790 La. 2001
- State v. Brown 737 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
- State v. Donaldson 726 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
- State v. Wilson 684 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
- State v. Trudell 684 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
- State v. Taylor 683 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Fraser 484 So. 2d 122
Opinion text
579 So.2d 452 (1991) STATE of Louisiana v. Gary A. DESDUNES. No. 90-KH-0932. Supreme Court of Louisiana. May 24, 1991. PER CURIAM. Writ Granted. Defendant's motion to correct his "illegally lenient" sentence for armed robbery (forty years at hard labor without mention of parole eligibility or ineligibility) was granted and he was resentenced to the same term of years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Upon motion of the state or the defendant, the sentencing court should correct an illegally lenient sentence by imposing a legal sentence of a term of years to be served without benefit or parole, probation, or suspension of sentence in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the criminal statute. LSA-R.S. 14:64; LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 882; State v. Fraser, 484 So.2d 122 (La.1986). Since correction of an "illegally lenient" sentence will usually result in a harsher sentence than that originally imposed as regards parole eligibility, upon correction of such a sentence the record should reflect consideration by the resentencing judge of the intent of the judge who imposed the original sentence, whether it be the same judge or another judge. If the intent of the judge who imposed the original sentence was that the term of years be served without benefit of parole, resentencing to the same term of years without benefit of parole is appropriate. If the intent of the judge who imposed the original sentence was to allow parole eligibility, then the resentencing judge may impose a sentence of a lesser term of years without benefit of parole to reflect that intent. If the intent of the judge who imposed the original sentence cannot be determined, then the resentencing judge should make an independent determination of an appropriate sentence, not to exceed the term of years originally imposed, to be served without benefit of parole. Since the record does not reflect such consideration by the resentencing judge in this case, the corrected sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for correction of the original sentence and resentencing in accordance with the considerations set forth above. WATSON, J., dissents.