State ex rel. Fontenot v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Fontenot v. State

836 So. 2d 66, 2003 La. LEXIS 319, 2003 WL 348900

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 31, 2003

DocketNo. 2002-KH-0441

StatusPublished

This text of 836 So. 2d 66 (State ex rel. Fontenot 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. Fontenot v. State, 836 So. 2d 66, 2003 La. LEXIS 319, 2003 WL 348900 (La. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Fontenot, Dwayne;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 88,689; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 01-00516.

Writ granted. If relator timely filed a motion to reconsider sentence, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(A)(1), and timely filed writs in the court of appeal seeking review of the district court’s denial of such a motion, see U.R.C.A. R. 4-3, then the court of appeal is directed to consider the merits of the application. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.2 (defendant “may appeal or seek review of a sentence based on any ground asserted in a motion to reconsider sentence .... ”); see also State v. Joshlin, 99-1004, p. 5 (La.1/19/00), 752 So.2d 834, 837 (reviewing courts should assume the legislature has not included superfluous terms in statutes).

VICTORY, J., would deny the writ. TRAYLOR, J., would deny the writ. WEIMER, J., would deny the writ.

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

In re Fontenot, Dwayne;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 88,689; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 01-00516.

Writ granted. If relator timely filed a motion to reconsider sentence, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(A)(1), and timely filed writs in the court of appeal seeking review of the district court’s denial of such a motion, see U.R.C.A. R. 4-3, then the court of appeal is directed to consider the merits of the application. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.2 (defendant “may appeal or seek review of a sentence based on any ground asserted in a motion to reconsider sentence .... ”); see also State v. Joshlin, 99-1004, p. 5 (La.1/19/00), 752 So.2d 834, 837 (reviewing courts should assume the legislature has not included superfluous terms in statutes).

VICTORY, J., would deny the writ. TRAYLOR, J., would deny the writ. WEIMER, J., would deny the writ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

836 So. 2d 66, 2003 La. LEXIS 319, 2003 WL 348900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-fontenot-v-state-la-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack