State ex rel. Teat v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Teat v. State

576 So. 2d 998, 1991 La. LEXIS 1017, 1991 WL 52840

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 11, 1991

DocketNo. 91-KH-0446

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 576 So. 2d 998 (State ex rel. Teat 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. Teat v. State, 576 So. 2d 998, 1991 La. LEXIS 1017, 1991 WL 52840 (La. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Teat, Danny A.; —Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of Allen 33rd Judicial District Court Number CR2863-82; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number KW89-0808.

Granted. That portion of relator’s sentence which calls for him to pay court costs or, in default of payment, to serve an additional one year under the supervision of the Louisiana Department of Corrections is vacated as it does not comply with the mandates of La.C.Cr.P. art. 884. State v. Hyland, 36 La.Ann. 709 (1884). The matter is remanded to the trial court for resentenc-ing and for a determination for indigency. If relator is found to be indigent the trial court is ordered to delete only that portion of his sentence which provides for a jail term in the event of default of payment of the fine imposed. An indigent person may not be incarcerated because he is unable to pay a fine which is part of his sentence. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983). However, we note that La.C.Cr.P. art. 886 permits the state to enforce collection of the fine in the same manner as a money judgment in a civil case. State v. Conley, 570 So.2d 1161 (La.1990).

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

In re Teat, Danny A.; —Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of Allen 33rd Judicial District Court Number CR2863-82; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number KW89-0808.

Granted. That portion of relator’s sentence which calls for him to pay court costs or, in default of payment, to serve an additional one year under the supervision of the Louisiana Department of Corrections is vacated as it does not comply with the mandates of La.C.Cr.P. art. 884. State v. Hyland, 36 La.Ann. 709 (1884). The matter is remanded to the trial court for resentenc-ing and for a determination for indigency. If relator is found to be indigent the trial court is ordered to delete only that portion of his sentence which provides for a jail term in the event of default of payment of the fine imposed. An indigent person may not be incarcerated because he is unable to pay a fine which is part of his sentence. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983). However, we note that La.C.Cr.P. art. 886 permits the state to enforce collection of the fine in the same manner as a money judgment in a civil case. State v. Conley, 570 So.2d 1161 (La.1990).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 So. 2d 998, 1991 La. LEXIS 1017, 1991 WL 52840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-teat-v-state-la-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack