Home/Supreme Court of Louisiana/State v. Decrevel

State v. Decrevel

847 So. 2d 1197, 2003 WL 21135551
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedMay 16, 2003
Docket2003-K-0259
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 847 So. 2d 1197 (State v. Decrevel) 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. Decrevel, 847 So. 2d 1197, 2003 WL 21135551 (La. 2003).

Opinion

847 So.2d 1197 (2003)

STATE of Louisiana
v.
John R. DECREVEL.

No. 2003-K-0259.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 16, 2003.

PER CURIAM.

Granted in part. The court of appeal had the authority on its own motion to correct the sentence imposed by directing the court to add the mandatory fine of $5000 required by R.S. 14:98(E)(1)(a). See State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/29/01), 800 So.2d 790; see also State v. Clemons, 01-1032 (La.App. 5th Cir.2/26/02), 811 So.2d 1047, writ denied 02-0866 (La.11/22/02), 834 So.2d 972. However, the court of appeal erred in further directing the trial court to require that all of the 12-year term of imprisonment at hard labor must run without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Because the defendant entered his guilty plea to fourth offense D.W.I. after the effective date of 2001 La. Acts 1163, he is entitled to the benefit of the ameliorative changes in *1198 the law with respect to sentencing under R.S. 14:98(E)(1), including suspension of all but 60 days of the sentence imposed. See State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), 820 So.2d 526. The defendant's sentence is therefore vacated, and this case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing in accord with the applicable law.

CALOGERO, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons assigned by Justice WEIMER.

JOHNSON, J., dissents.

WEIMER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons.

WEIMER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Although I agree the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the ameliorative changes in the law with respect to sentencing under LSA-R.S. 14:98(E)(1),[1] I would grant the writ regarding whether the court of appeal can correct the fine imposed where the State has not raised that issue on appeal. See State v. Phillips, 02-0866, 02-0918 (La.11/22/02), 834 So.2d 972, Chief Justice Calogero dissenting from the denial of the writ, voting to grant the writ and assigning reasons.

NOTES

[1] See State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), 820 So.2d 526.

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

Related

State v. Gillum
165 So. 3d 924 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014)
State v. Thomas
54 So. 3d 678 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2010)
State v. Hearn
30 So. 3d 873 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009)
State v. Turner
13 So. 3d 695 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009)
State v. Price
996 So. 2d 343 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2008)
State v. Presson
986 So. 2d 843 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2008)
State v. Sermons
953 So. 2d 958 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2007)
State v. Payne
945 So. 2d 749 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2006)
State v. Ellington
889 So. 2d 1146 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
State v. Volgamore
865 So. 2d 237 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
State v. Williams
859 So. 2d 751 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
847 So. 2d 1197, 2003 WL 21135551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-decrevel-la-2003.