State v. Daniels

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Daniels

171 So. 56, 185 La. 860, 1936 La. LEXIS 1233

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided November 4, 1936·No. No. 34014.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BRUNOT, Justice.

The accused was charged with having marajuana in his possession in violation of the provisions of Act No. 14 of the Second Extraordinary Session of the State Legislature of 1934. He was formally indicted for that offense. Pie was arraigned upon said charge, pleaded not guilty, the case was regularly assigned, tried, and a verdict of “guilty as charged” was returned by the jury.

In due course the accused was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, at hard labor, for not less than twenty months nor more than five years. From the verdict and sentence he appealed.

There is no bill of exception in the record, no motion for a new trial, no assignment of error, therein, and no error patent on the face thereof.

Under the stated circumstances, the verdict and sentence are affirmed. State v. Maniacol, 153 La. 1053, 97 So. 37; State v. Deleo, 156 La. 672, 674, 101 So. 17; State v. Cook, 158 La. 240, 103 So. 753; State v. Melson, 161 La. 423, 108 So. 794; City of Shreveport v. Jones, 172 La. 833, 135 So. 373.

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

BRUNOT, Justice.

The accused was charged with having marajuana in his possession in violation of the provisions of Act No. 14 of the Second Extraordinary Session of the State Legislature of 1934. He was formally indicted for that offense. Pie was arraigned upon said charge, pleaded not guilty, the case was regularly assigned, tried, and a verdict of “guilty as charged” was returned by the jury.

In due course the accused was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, at hard labor, for not less than twenty months nor more than five years. From the verdict and sentence he appealed.

There is no bill of exception in the record, no motion for a new trial, no assignment of error, therein, and no error patent on the face thereof.

Under the stated circumstances, the verdict and sentence are affirmed. State v. Maniacol, 153 La. 1053, 97 So. 37; State v. Deleo, 156 La. 672, 674, 101 So. 17; State v. Cook, 158 La. 240, 103 So. 753; State v. Melson, 161 La. 423, 108 So. 794; City of Shreveport v. Jones, 172 La. 833, 135 So. 373.

State v. Daniels, 171 So. 56, 185 La. 860, 1936 La. LEXIS 1233 (La. 1936).

Pincite

171 So. 56 (State v. Daniels) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related