State ex rel. Burger v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Burger v. State

661 So. 2d 1373, 1995 La. LEXIS 2687

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 3, 1995

DocketNo. 94-KH-1578

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 661 So. 2d 1373 (State ex rel. Burger v. State) 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. Burger v. State, 661 So. 2d 1373, 1995 La. LEXIS 2687 (La. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Burger, Brett; — Plaintiffs); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “B”, No. 315-426.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded. The timeliness provisions of C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A) do not apply to motions to correct illegal sentences properly made under La.C.Cr.P. art. 882, which states that illegal sentences “may be corrected at any time.” State ex rel. Foucha v. Cr.D.C., 93-1001 (La. 9/2/94), 642 So.2d 1274; State ex rel. Johnson v. Day, 92-0122 (La. 5/13/94), 637 So.2d 1062. The district court is therefore ordered to address the merits of relator’s claims that he received an illegally lenient sentence, in accordance with the procedures and guidelines forth in State v. Des-dunes, 579 So.2d 452 (La.1991); State v. Washington, 578 So.2d 1150 (La.1991) and State ex rel. Jackson v. Smith, 578 So.2d 1150 (La.1991). In all other respects, relator’s application is denied because the other issues relator raises form the proper basis not for a motion to correct an illegal sentence but rather for an application for post-eonvietion relief, time-barred in relator’s case. State ex rel. Stepter v. Whitley, 93-2346 (La. 10/13/95). 661 So.2d 480; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2380 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

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

In re Burger, Brett; — Plaintiffs); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “B”, No. 315-426.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded. The timeliness provisions of C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A) do not apply to motions to correct illegal sentences properly made under La.C.Cr.P. art. 882, which states that illegal sentences “may be corrected at any time.” State ex rel. Foucha v. Cr.D.C., 93-1001 (La. 9/2/94), 642 So.2d 1274; State ex rel. Johnson v. Day, 92-0122 (La. 5/13/94), 637 So.2d 1062. The district court is therefore ordered to address the merits of relator’s claims that he received an illegally lenient sentence, in accordance with the procedures and guidelines forth in State v. Des-dunes, 579 So.2d 452 (La.1991); State v. Washington, 578 So.2d 1150 (La.1991) and State ex rel. Jackson v. Smith, 578 So.2d 1150 (La.1991). In all other respects, relator’s application is denied because the other issues relator raises form the proper basis not for a motion to correct an illegal sentence but rather for an application for post-eonvietion relief, time-barred in relator’s case. State ex rel. Stepter v. Whitley, 93-2346 (La. 10/13/95). 661 So.2d 480; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2380 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 So. 2d 1373, 1995 La. LEXIS 2687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-burger-v-state-la-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack