State v. Arnold

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Arnold

770 So. 2d 332, 2000 La. LEXIS 2424, 2000 WL 1483382

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 6, 2000

DocketNo. 00-KP-0570

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 770 So. 2d 332 (State v. Arnold) 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 v. Arnold, 770 So. 2d 332, 2000 La. LEXIS 2424, 2000 WL 1483382 (La. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Writ Granted. The Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, erred in its analysis of defendant’s claim of a double jeopardy violation. Defendant, who has entered an unconditional guilty plea, can only attack the convictions on double jeopardy grounds if he shows a double jeopardy violation on the face of the pleadings or record. La. Code Crim.Proc. art. 930.2; United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 575-76, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989); State ex rel. Boyd v. State, 98-0378 (La.10/9/98), 720 So.2d 667; State ex rel. Adams v. Butler, 558 So.2d 552, 553 n. 1 (La.1990); cf. State v. Texada, 98-1647 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/5/99), 734 So.2d 854, 863-64. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside and this case is remanded to the appellate court for further consideration of defendant’s claim of a double jeopardy violation based only on the face of the pleadings and record.

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

PER CURIAM.

Writ Granted. The Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, erred in its analysis of defendant’s claim of a double jeopardy violation. Defendant, who has entered an unconditional guilty plea, can only attack the convictions on double jeopardy grounds if he shows a double jeopardy violation on the face of the pleadings or record. La. Code Crim.Proc. art. 930.2; United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 575-76, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989); State ex rel. Boyd v. State, 98-0378 (La.10/9/98), 720 So.2d 667; State ex rel. Adams v. Butler, 558 So.2d 552, 553 n. 1 (La.1990); cf. State v. Texada, 98-1647 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/5/99), 734 So.2d 854, 863-64. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside and this case is remanded to the appellate court for further consideration of defendant’s claim of a double jeopardy violation based only on the face of the pleadings and record.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

770 So. 2d 332, 2000 La. LEXIS 2424, 2000 WL 1483382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-arnold-la-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack