State v. Dakenhart

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Dakenhart

101 So. 729, 157 La. 13, 1924 La. LEXIS 2159

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 3, 1924

DocketNo. 26591.

StatusPublished

This text of 101 So. 729 (State v. Dakenhart) 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. Dakenhart, 101 So. 729, 157 La. 13, 1924 La. LEXIS 2159 (La. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

The accused was found guilty of manufacturing intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and to serve 60 days in jail, with an alternative sentence of one year in default of paying the fine and costs.

He has made no appearance in this court either by brief or oral argument, and we find nothing in the record to justify this appeal. There are no bills of exception, no motion to quash, no motion for a new trial, no motion in arrest of judgment, and no assignment of errors. The trial appears to have been regular and the conviction and sentence legal. We have no alternative but to affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed. •

O’NIELL, C. J., is of the opinion that the sentence is excessive and to that extent illegal.

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

THOMPSON, J.

The accused was found guilty of manufacturing intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and to serve 60 days in jail, with an alternative sentence of one year in default of paying the fine and costs.

He has made no appearance in this court either by brief or oral argument, and we find nothing in the record to justify this appeal. There are no bills of exception, no motion to quash, no motion for a new trial, no motion in arrest of judgment, and no assignment of errors. The trial appears to have been regular and the conviction and sentence legal. We have no alternative but to affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed. •

O’NIELL, C. J., is of the opinion that the sentence is excessive and to that extent illegal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 So. 729, 157 La. 13, 1924 La. LEXIS 2159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dakenhart-la-1924.