92-KO-0732 Precedential Processed

State v. Lucas

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed May 22, 1992 · 598 So. 2d 338

Also decided on this docket: La., June 26, 1992 600 So. 2d 651

Cited by

State v. Bertrand 891 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Fletcher 845 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. O'Neal 665 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State ex rel. Wheeler v. Shea 629 So. 2d 1161 La. 1993
State ex rel. Parker v. State 629 So. 2d 410 La. 1993
State ex rel. Johnson v. Whitley 609 So. 2d 246 La. 1992
State ex rel. Dright v. State 605 So. 2d 1106 La. 1992
State ex rel. Davis v. Waldron 605 So. 2d 1109 La. 1992
State ex rel. Lee v. Whitley 605 So. 2d 1112 La. 1992
State ex rel. Bienemy v. Whitley 605 So. 2d 1112 La. 1992
State Ex Rel. Davis v. Waldron 605 So. 2d 1109 La. 1992
State v. Lucas 600 So. 2d 651 La. 1992

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Lucas 482 So. 2d 7
452 So. 682 not in our corpus
State v. Napoli 437 So. 2d 868
State v. Fraser 484 So. 2d 122

Opinion text

598 So.2d 338 (1992) STATE of Louisiana v. Harry LUCAS. No. 92-KO-0732. Supreme Court of Louisiana. May 22, 1992. Reconsideration Denied June 26, 1992. Denied. At the time the First Circuit Court of Appeal remanded this case for resentencing, State v. Lucas, 482 So.2d 7 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985), this Court had not yet determined what effect, if any, the 1984 amendment of La.C.Cr.P. art. 882, authorizing appellate courts to correct illegal sentences, had on its general policy that appellate courts should refrain from correcting on their own motion sentencing mistakes in the defendant's favor. State v. Jackson, 452 So. 682 (La. 1984); State v. Napoli, 437 So.2d 868 (La.1983). The defendant did not seek review of that order, which would have preserved the question under this Court's subsequent decision in State v. Fraser, 484 So.2d 122 (La.1986), reaffirming Jackson , and on remand the same trial judge then resentenced the defendant according to his original sentencing intent. Even assuming that the defendant has received a greater, but legal sentence, on remand, the circumstances of this case do not support a presumption of vindictiveness under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), as the defendant's second sentence rests on an "on-the-record, wholly logical, non-vindictive reason...." Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134 , 106 S.Ct. 976, 980 , 89 L.Ed.2d 104 (1986).