State v. Cockerham

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Cockerham

245 So. 3d 1035

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided June 15, 2018·No. No. 2017–KO–1802·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

GENOVESE, J., would grant for the reasons assigned by Judge Holdridge.

CRICHTON, J., would grant in part and assigns reasons:

*1036As Judge Holdridge notes in his dissent below, without an amendment to the habitual offender bill of information by the district attorney, the district court was limited to sentencing the defendant as a third-felony offender. I agree and would therefore reverse the fourth-felony adjudication and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

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

GENOVESE, J., would grant for the reasons assigned by Judge Holdridge.

CRICHTON, J., would grant in part and assigns reasons:

*1036As Judge Holdridge notes in his dissent below, without an amendment to the habitual offender bill of information by the district attorney, the district court was limited to sentencing the defendant as a third-felony offender. I agree and would therefore reverse the fourth-felony adjudication and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

State v. Cockerham, 245 So. 3d 1035 (La. 2018).

Pincite

245 So. 3d 1035 (State v. Cockerham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related