State v. Etienne
State v. Etienne, 712 So. 2d 981 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998).
The holding in the court’s own words
Given the nature of the present offense and the defendant’s prior criminal history, we hold that the sentencing court did not abuse its wide discretion in imposing a sentence that was within the statutory limits.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- Derrick Mills Versus Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
- Joneka D. Henry Versus Jon M. Reeves, the State of Louisiana Through the Louisiana … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
- Genusa v. Robert 720 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Conners 577 So. 2d 273
Opinion text
JjPER CURIAM. The defendant, Daley Etienne, Jr., who was convicted of second degree battery, sentenced to serve three years at hard labor and ordered to pay restitution upon any determination of parole, appeals his sentence based on grounds that: (1) It was unconstitutionally excessive and (2) The trial court was without authority to impose restitution as a condition of parole. Given the nature of the present offense and the defendant’s prior criminal history, we hold that the sentencing court did not abuse its wide discretion in imposing a sentence that was within the statutory limits. However, since “the legislature has vested the Board of Parole with the authority to impose conditions of parole” as it relates to victim restitution, the sentencing court acted without authority. State v. Conners, 577 So.2d 273 (La.App. 3 Cir.1991) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s sentence, but vacate the court’s order imposing restitution to the victim as a condition for parole. AFFIRMED AND AMENDED.