No. K91-023 Precedential Vacated Processed

State v. Davis

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed January 9, 1991 · 581 So. 2d 1013

Cited by

Sierra v. American Alternative Insurance Corp. 147 So. 3d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Delta Wayne White La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Corbello v. Iowa Production 850 So. 2d 686 La. 2003
Dumas v. Angus Chemical Co. 742 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Williams v. City of Baton Rouge 731 So. 2d 240 La. 1999
Williams v. City of Baton Rouge 715 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Kelly v. Owens 698 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Matchmaker International of New Orleans, Inc. v. Osborne 653 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Tolis v. BOARD OF SUP'RS, STATE UNIVERSITY 602 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Barnes 596 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Cutrer v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad 588 So. 2d 1120 La. 1991

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Volentine 565 So. 2d 511
State v. Loya 527 So. 2d 514

Opinion text

ORDER WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY: The sentencing record does not clearly show that relator received a sentence on each count to which he pled nor does it reflect the court’s intent concerning concurrent service of sentences. A determinate sentence should have been clearly pronounced on each count of which relator was convicted. See State v. Volentine, 565 So.2d 511 (La.App. 2 Cir.1990) and La.C.Cr.P. arts. 871, 879. Furthermore, ten years exceeds the maximum sentence statutorily provided on the two counts of possession of pentazo-cine. La.R.S. 40:967(C). We also recognize an illegally lenient sentence was imposed on the eight counts of distribution of pentazocine in as much as the statute prohibits a probated sentence. However, as the error is favorable to relator, and the sentence has been vacated, this issue is moot. State v. Loya, 527 So.2d 514 (La.App. 3 Cir.1988). Accordingly, we recognize as error patent the failure of the sentencing court to give a determinate sentence on each count of which relator was sentenced and, therefore, vacate the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing in accordance with law. As relator’s sentence is vacated, we do not reach the issue of whether relator’s probation was properly revoked as that issue has been rendered moot. /s/J.B.F. /s/H.L.Y. /s/J.T.K. J.B.F. H.L.Y. J.T.K.