State v. Dean

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Dean

458 So. 2d 999, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9828

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 7, 1984

DocketNo. CR83-902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 458 So. 2d 999 (State v. Dean) 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. Dean, 458 So. 2d 999, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9828 (La. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

The defendant, Ivy Lee Dean, was charged by Bill of Information on Novem[1000]*1000ber 22, 1982, with possession of a controlled dangerous substance, pentazocine, a violation of La.R.S. 40:967 C.

On June 22, 1983, following a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty as charged by a unanimous verdict. On July 12, 1983, the defendant made a motion for a new trial which was denied, and the defendant waived any further delay in sentencing.

The trial judge committed defendant to the Department of Corrections to serve four years in a State penal institution.

Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence alleging four assignments of error. However, as he has failed to brief any of those assignments of error, they are considered abandoned. State v. Dewey, 408 So.2d 1255 (La.1982), and State v. Carlisle, 315 So.2d 675 (La. 1975). We are therefore limited in this appeal to a consideration of those errors discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence, i.e., patent errors. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920(2).

We have conducted a careful examination of the record before us pursuant to the provisions of La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920, and finding no errors patent on the record, we hereby affirm the conviction.

AFFIRMED.

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

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

The defendant, Ivy Lee Dean, was charged by Bill of Information on Novem[1000]*1000ber 22, 1982, with possession of a controlled dangerous substance, pentazocine, a violation of La.R.S. 40:967 C.

On June 22, 1983, following a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty as charged by a unanimous verdict. On July 12, 1983, the defendant made a motion for a new trial which was denied, and the defendant waived any further delay in sentencing.

The trial judge committed defendant to the Department of Corrections to serve four years in a State penal institution.

Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence alleging four assignments of error. However, as he has failed to brief any of those assignments of error, they are considered abandoned. State v. Dewey, 408 So.2d 1255 (La.1982), and State v. Carlisle, 315 So.2d 675 (La. 1975). We are therefore limited in this appeal to a consideration of those errors discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence, i.e., patent errors. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920(2).

We have conducted a careful examination of the record before us pursuant to the provisions of La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920, and finding no errors patent on the record, we hereby affirm the conviction.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 So. 2d 999, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dean-lactapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack