State v. Biagas

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Biagas

255 So. 2d 77, 260 La. 69, 1971 La. LEXIS 3879

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 23, 1971

DocketNo. 51516

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 255 So. 2d 77 (State v. Biagas) 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. Biagas, 255 So. 2d 77, 260 La. 69, 1971 La. LEXIS 3879 (La. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted of armed robbery. LSA-RS 14:64. He appeals.

The defendant reserved and perfected one bill of exception based on the trial judge’s denial of his motion for a new trial. A bill of exception taken to the overruling of a motion for new trial, based upon an allegation that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence, presents nothing for review. State v. Grey, 257 La. 1070, 245 So.2d 178 (1971); State v. Ponthieux, 254 La. 482, 224 So.2d 462 (1969); State v. Poole, 203 La. 1032, 14 So.2d 826 (1943).

The appellant additionally urges as patent error (error discoverable by review of the pleadings and proceedings, La.C. Crim.P. Art. 920) the circumstances that the jury verdict was not unanimous (11-1), as permitted by Louisiana law in non-capital felonies which are necessarily punishable by imprisonment at hard labor. La. Const. of 1921, Art. 7, Section 41, La.C. Crim.P. Art. 782. However, we have con sistently rejected the contention that this procedure offends any federal constitutional guarantee. State v. Jones, 257 La. 966, 244 So.2d 849 (1971); State v. Schoonover, 252 La. 311, 211 So.2d 273 (1968).

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted of armed robbery. LSA-RS 14:64. He appeals.

The defendant reserved and perfected one bill of exception based on the trial judge’s denial of his motion for a new trial. A bill of exception taken to the overruling of a motion for new trial, based upon an allegation that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence, presents nothing for review. State v. Grey, 257 La. 1070, 245 So.2d 178 (1971); State v. Ponthieux, 254 La. 482, 224 So.2d 462 (1969); State v. Poole, 203 La. 1032, 14 So.2d 826 (1943).

The appellant additionally urges as patent error (error discoverable by review of the pleadings and proceedings, La.C. Crim.P. Art. 920) the circumstances that the jury verdict was not unanimous (11-1), as permitted by Louisiana law in non-capital felonies which are necessarily punishable by imprisonment at hard labor. La. Const. of 1921, Art. 7, Section 41, La.C. Crim.P. Art. 782. However, we have con sistently rejected the contention that this procedure offends any federal constitutional guarantee. State v. Jones, 257 La. 966, 244 So.2d 849 (1971); State v. Schoonover, 252 La. 311, 211 So.2d 273 (1968).

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 So. 2d 77, 260 La. 69, 1971 La. LEXIS 3879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-biagas-la-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack