State ex rel. Smith v. Criminal District Court

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Smith v. Criminal District Court

646 So. 2d 367, 1994 La. LEXIS 2767, 1994 WL 658868

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 18, 1994

DocketNo. 93-KH-1937

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 646 So. 2d 367 (State ex rel. Smith v. Criminal District Court) 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. Smith v. Criminal District Court, 646 So. 2d 367, 1994 La. LEXIS 2767, 1994 WL 658868 (La. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Smith, Lester; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “F”, No. 317-192; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 9KW-1040.

Writ granted. Relator moved the district court under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 882 to correct an illegally lenient sentence and the district court denied the motion as untimely pursuant to LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A). However, the timeliness provisions of C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A) apply to applications for post-conviction relief made under La.C.Cr.P. arts. 924-930.8, and do not apply to motions to correct illegal sentences made under La.C.Cr.P. art. 882, which states that illegal sentences “may be corrected at any time.” State ex rel. Johnson v. Day, 637 So.2d 1062 (La.1994); cf. State v. Johnson, 220 La. 64, 55 So.2d 782 (1951). The district court is therefore ordered to address the merits of relator’s claims.

DENNIS, J., not on panel.

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

In re Smith, Lester; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “F”, No. 317-192; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 9KW-1040.

Writ granted. Relator moved the district court under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 882 to correct an illegally lenient sentence and the district court denied the motion as untimely pursuant to LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A). However, the timeliness provisions of C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A) apply to applications for post-conviction relief made under La.C.Cr.P. arts. 924-930.8, and do not apply to motions to correct illegal sentences made under La.C.Cr.P. art. 882, which states that illegal sentences “may be corrected at any time.” State ex rel. Johnson v. Day, 637 So.2d 1062 (La.1994); cf. State v. Johnson, 220 La. 64, 55 So.2d 782 (1951). The district court is therefore ordered to address the merits of relator’s claims.

DENNIS, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

646 So. 2d 367, 1994 La. LEXIS 2767, 1994 WL 658868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-smith-v-criminal-district-court-la-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack