State v. Ardoin

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Ardoin

458 So. 2d 1015, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9816

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 7, 1984

DocketNo. CR83-1149

StatusPublished

This text of 458 So. 2d 1015 (State v. Ardoin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Ardoin, 458 So. 2d 1015, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9816 (La. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

DOUCET, Judge.

The defendant, Edwin Troy Ardoin, was charged by bill of information with simple burglary, in violation of La.R.S. 14:62. On September 20, 1983, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of simple [1016]*1016burglary. On October 21, 1983, the defendant was sentenced to serve a term of six years at hard labor. Defendant appeals urging in his one assignment of error that the sentence imposed is excessive.

Although defendant perfected one assignment of error into the record, the assignment of error has not been briefed, consequently, it is considered abandoned. State v. Joseph, 425 So.2d 1261 (La.1983). This case will only be reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record. In accord with the mandate of La.C.Cr.P. art. 920, we have inspected the face of the record for errors patent. We find no error. We affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

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

DOUCET, Judge.

The defendant, Edwin Troy Ardoin, was charged by bill of information with simple burglary, in violation of La.R.S. 14:62. On September 20, 1983, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of simple [1016]*1016burglary. On October 21, 1983, the defendant was sentenced to serve a term of six years at hard labor. Defendant appeals urging in his one assignment of error that the sentence imposed is excessive.

Although defendant perfected one assignment of error into the record, the assignment of error has not been briefed, consequently, it is considered abandoned. State v. Joseph, 425 So.2d 1261 (La.1983). This case will only be reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record. In accord with the mandate of La.C.Cr.P. art. 920, we have inspected the face of the record for errors patent. We find no error. We affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 So. 2d 1015, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ardoin-lactapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack