No. 49156 Precedential Processed

State v. Singleton

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed November 12, 1968 · 215 So. 2d 512

Cited by

State v. Occhipinti 358 So. 2d 1209 La. 1978
State v. Skelton 340 So. 2d 256 La. 1976
State v. Sharp 338 So. 2d 654 La. 1976
State v. Carney 319 So. 2d 400 La. 1975
State v. Landrum 307 So. 2d 345 La. 1975
State v. Michelli 301 So. 2d 577 La. 1974
State v. Gilbert 286 So. 2d 345 La. 1973
State v. Plummer 281 So. 2d 716 La. 1973
State v. Seals 233 So. 2d 914 La. 1970

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Latigue 251 La. 193
State v. Page 251 La. 810
State v. Page 206 So. 2d 503
State v. Stokes 250 La. 277
State v. Pebworth 251 La. 1063
State v. Laviolette 250 La. 287

Opinion text

HAMLIN, Justice: Defendant was charged by bill of information with the crime of attempted murder, tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve fifteen years at hard labor in the State Penitentiary. He appeals to this Court from his conviction and sentence, presenting for our consideration one bill of exceptions reserved to the overruling of a motion for a new trial. Counsel for defendant neither filed a brief in this Court nor made an appearance on the date set for argument. The motion for a new trial avers that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and the evidence. The bill of exceptions reserved to the overruling of the motion by the trial judge avers that the ruling was contrary to the law and evidence submitted in the matter. Our review in criminal cases is limited in scope to questions of law. Art. VII, Sec. 10, La.Const. of 1921; State v. Latigue, 251 La. 193 , 203 So.2d 546 ; State v. Page, 251 La. 810 , 206 So.2d 503 . The allegation that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence ordinarily presents nothing for our review. State v. Stokes, 250 La. 277 , 195 So.2d 267 ; State v. Pebworth, 251 La. 1063 , 208 So.2d 530 . Cf. Art. 851 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Out of an abundance of caution, we have examined the record for errors patent on its face and find that none exist. There is some evidence of the essential elements of the crime charged; therefore, this Court will not review the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Laviolette, 250 La. 287 , 195 So.2d 270 ; State v. Latigue, supra. The bill of exceptions is without merit. For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.