State ex rel. Bienemy v. Whitley

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Bienemy v. Whitley

605 So. 2d 1112, 1992 La. LEXIS 2980, 1992 WL 279341

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 9, 1992

DocketNo. 91-KH-1870

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 605 So. 2d 1112 (State ex rel. Bienemy v. Whitley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Bienemy v. Whitley, 605 So. 2d 1112, 1992 La. LEXIS 2980, 1992 WL 279341 (La. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Bienemy, Sidney; — Plamtiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 252-712.

Denied. The sentence imposed in 1975 represented the mandatory minimum term [1113]*1113of years for a multiple offender convicted of armed robbery and sentenced under La. R.S. 15:529.1. The district court has no discretion to impose a lesser term of years and the court’s correction of its sentence to reflect the requirement of law that the penalty run without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence does not give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). Relator’s corrected sentence rests on an “ ‘on-the-record, wholly logical, non-vindictive reason_’” State v. Lucas, 598 So.2d 338 (La.1992) [quoting Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, 140, 106 S.Ct. 976, 980, 89 L.Ed.2d 104 (1986)].

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re Bienemy, Sidney; — Plamtiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 252-712.

Denied. The sentence imposed in 1975 represented the mandatory minimum term [1113]*1113of years for a multiple offender convicted of armed robbery and sentenced under La. R.S. 15:529.1. The district court has no discretion to impose a lesser term of years and the court’s correction of its sentence to reflect the requirement of law that the penalty run without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence does not give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). Relator’s corrected sentence rests on an “ ‘on-the-record, wholly logical, non-vindictive reason_’” State v. Lucas, 598 So.2d 338 (La.1992) [quoting Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, 140, 106 S.Ct. 976, 980, 89 L.Ed.2d 104 (1986)].

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 So. 2d 1112, 1992 La. LEXIS 2980, 1992 WL 279341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bienemy-v-whitley-la-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack