State ex rel. Dright v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Dright v. State

605 So. 2d 1106, 1992 La. LEXIS 3001, 1992 WL 278370

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 9, 1992

DocketNo. 91-KH-1650

StatusPublished

This text of 605 So. 2d 1106 (State ex rel. Dright 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. Dright v. State, 605 So. 2d 1106, 1992 La. LEXIS 3001, 1992 WL 278370 (La. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Dright, Raymond; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “C”, No. 254-672.

Granted. This case is remanded to the district court for correction of relator’s sentence of 33 years at hard labor, the mandatory minimum penalty that any court could impose on a multiple offender convicted of [1107]*1107armed robbery and sentences under the provisions of La.R.S. 15:529.1, to reflect that the sentence will run without benefit of parole. State v. Bruins 407 So.2d 685 (La.1981). The requirement of law that relator serve his sentence without parole eligibility constitutes a “ ‘wholly logical, non-vindictive reason ... for correcting the sentence in this case. 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 Dright, Raymond; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “C”, No. 254-672.

Granted. This case is remanded to the district court for correction of relator’s sentence of 33 years at hard labor, the mandatory minimum penalty that any court could impose on a multiple offender convicted of [1107]*1107armed robbery and sentences under the provisions of La.R.S. 15:529.1, to reflect that the sentence will run without benefit of parole. State v. Bruins 407 So.2d 685 (La.1981). The requirement of law that relator serve his sentence without parole eligibility constitutes a “ ‘wholly logical, non-vindictive reason ... for correcting the sentence in this case. 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 1106, 1992 La. LEXIS 3001, 1992 WL 278370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-dright-v-state-la-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack