State v. Dixon

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Dixon

584 So. 2d 668, 1991 La. LEXIS 2283, 1991 WL 173533

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedSeptember 6, 1991

DocketNo. 91-K-1000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 584 So. 2d 668 (State v. Dixon) 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. Dixon, 584 So. 2d 668, 1991 La. LEXIS 2283, 1991 WL 173533 (La. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Dixon, Henry Alvin; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus, supervisory/remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 22,-341-KA; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 144,687.

Prior report: La.App., 577 So.2d 1232.

[669]*669Granted in part. Ls.Rev.Stat. 15:529.1 requires that the sentencing judge vacate the original sentence and resentence the defendant as a multiple offender. In re-sentencing, the judge must impose a sentence authorized by La.Rev.Stat. 15:529.1. That statute does not authorize the imposition of a fine, but only provides for enhanced sentences relating to the term of imprisonment. The trial judge was therefore without authority to impose a fine on resentencing under La.Rev.Stat. 15:529.1. Accordingly, the fine and default provisions of defendant’s sentence are deleted. The application is otherwise denied.

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

In re Dixon, Henry Alvin; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus, supervisory/remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 22,-341-KA; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 144,687.

Prior report: La.App., 577 So.2d 1232.

[669]*669Granted in part. Ls.Rev.Stat. 15:529.1 requires that the sentencing judge vacate the original sentence and resentence the defendant as a multiple offender. In re-sentencing, the judge must impose a sentence authorized by La.Rev.Stat. 15:529.1. That statute does not authorize the imposition of a fine, but only provides for enhanced sentences relating to the term of imprisonment. The trial judge was therefore without authority to impose a fine on resentencing under La.Rev.Stat. 15:529.1. Accordingly, the fine and default provisions of defendant’s sentence are deleted. The application is otherwise denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

584 So. 2d 668, 1991 La. LEXIS 2283, 1991 WL 173533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dixon-la-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack