State v. Babineaux

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Babineaux

217 So. 3d 329, 2017 WL 1459673, 2017 La. LEXIS 837

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 24, 2017

DocketNo. 16-OK-0694

StatusPublished

This text of 217 So. 3d 329 (State v. Babineaux) 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. Babineaux, 217 So. 3d 329, 2017 WL 1459673, 2017 La. LEXIS 837 (La. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

hWrit granted. In accordance with the parties’ plea agreement, the district court sentenced relator pursuant to the version of the statute in effect at the time of his guilty plea, see R.S. 14:43.3, which provided for a substantially harsher punishment than at the time of his offense. Because the plea agreement thereby provided for the imposition of an illegal sentence, the agreement is null and void. See, e.g., United States v. Gibson, 356 F.3d 761, 767 (7th Cir. 2004) (“To allow an illegal sentence to stand would impugn the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceedings that have taken place in this case.”); see also Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (“If the illegal sentence was a material condition of a plea agreement, then the defendant must be [330]*330given the opportunity (a) to withdraw his plea and stand trial on the original charges or (b) to enter into a legal plea agreement.”); United Stated v. Greatwalker, 285 F.3d 727, 730 (8th Cir. 2002) (“Even when a defendant, prosecutor, and court agree on a sentence, the court cannot give the sentence effect if it is not authorized by law”). Relator’s conviction and sentence are therefore vacated and the parties are returned to status \ 9,qm ante. We remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order.

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

PER CURIAM

hWrit granted. In accordance with the parties’ plea agreement, the district court sentenced relator pursuant to the version of the statute in effect at the time of his guilty plea, see R.S. 14:43.3, which provided for a substantially harsher punishment than at the time of his offense. Because the plea agreement thereby provided for the imposition of an illegal sentence, the agreement is null and void. See, e.g., United States v. Gibson, 356 F.3d 761, 767 (7th Cir. 2004) (“To allow an illegal sentence to stand would impugn the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceedings that have taken place in this case.”); see also Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (“If the illegal sentence was a material condition of a plea agreement, then the defendant must be [330]*330given the opportunity (a) to withdraw his plea and stand trial on the original charges or (b) to enter into a legal plea agreement.”); United Stated v. Greatwalker, 285 F.3d 727, 730 (8th Cir. 2002) (“Even when a defendant, prosecutor, and court agree on a sentence, the court cannot give the sentence effect if it is not authorized by law”). Relator’s conviction and sentence are therefore vacated and the parties are returned to status \ 9,qm ante. We remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 So. 3d 329, 2017 WL 1459673, 2017 La. LEXIS 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-babineaux-la-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack