Home/Louisiana Court of Appeal/State v. Bush

State v. Bush

604 So. 2d 1383, 1992 WL 233123
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedSeptember 23, 1992
Docket24270-KA
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 604 So. 2d 1383 (State v. Bush) 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. Bush, 604 So. 2d 1383, 1992 WL 233123 (La. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

604 So.2d 1383 (1992)

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee,
v.
Keith A. BUSH, Appellant.

No. 24270-KA.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

September 23, 1992.

Indigent Defender Office by Stanley B. McDonald, for appellant.

Richard P. Ieyoub, Atty. Gen., Paul J. Carmouche, Dist. Atty., Ted Cox, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

Before NORRIS, LINDSAY and STEWART, JJ.

STEWART, Judge.

Defendant, Keith A. Bush, was charged by bill of information with distribution of cocaine, a violation of LSA-R.S. 40:967(A)(1). After a trial by jury, Bush was convicted as charged and sentenced, on February 20, 1992, to eight years at hard labor. He now appeals, claiming only that the sentence imposed is excessive. This claim is not properly before the court because Bush has failed to comply with LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 881.1. Finding no error patent, we affirm.

FACTS

On August 9, 1991, two undercover police officers were dispatched to West 67th *1384 Street in Shreveport, pursuant to a series of complaints regarding drug trafficking in the area. After arriving at the scene, one of the undercover officers purchased two pieces of crack cocaine from Bush for $20. Bush was arrested shortly thereafter, and charged with distribution of cocaine.

DISCUSSION

LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 881.1, which was in effect at the time of Bush's sentencing, requires a defendant to file a motion to reconsider sentence within 30 days following the imposition of sentence or within such longer period as the trial court may set at sentencing. The record shows no such motion was filed. Failure to file this motion precludes the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or from urging any ground not raised in the motion on appeal or review, Art. 881.1(D). Accordingly, the assignment is not properly before this court and is not considered.

CONCLUSION

We have examined the record for error patent and found none. Defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

State v. Brantley
679 So. 2d 472 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1996)
State v. Smith
677 So. 2d 589 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1996)
State v. Evans
661 So. 2d 600 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1995)
State v. Robinson
661 So. 2d 527 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1995)
State v. Scott
658 So. 2d 251 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1995)
State v. Page
651 So. 2d 888 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1995)
State v. Lane
634 So. 2d 958 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1994)
State v. Butler
631 So. 2d 22 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1994)
State v. Jackson
629 So. 2d 1374 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
State v. Lankford
626 So. 2d 1217 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
State v. Cole
626 So. 2d 769 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
State v. Garth
622 So. 2d 1189 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
State v. Powell
621 So. 2d 111 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
State v. Green
621 So. 2d 629 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
State v. Essex
618 So. 2d 574 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
State v. Carter
619 So. 2d 82 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
State v. Gantt
616 So. 2d 1300 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
State v. Wiley
614 So. 2d 862 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
State v. Diaz
612 So. 2d 1019 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
State v. Epperson
609 So. 2d 1033 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
604 So. 2d 1383, 1992 WL 233123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bush-lactapp-1992.