State v. Dorsey

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Dorsey

275 So. 3d 874

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 26, 2019

DocketNo. 2019-K-0349

StatusPublished

This text of 275 So. 3d 874 (State v. Dorsey) 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. Dorsey, 275 So. 3d 874 (La. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Writ granted. The court of appeal erred in finding as an error patent that the district court did not adhere to the 24-hour statutory sentencing delay required by La.C.Cr.P. art. 873. See State v. Dorsey , 18-0250 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/7/18), 260 So.3d 616. Whether the article requires a 24-hour sentencing delay between the denial of post-verdict motions and the commencement of a habitual offender adjudication, whether the article was violated under the circumstances here where the imposition of sentence did not occur until three weeks after the habitual offender adjudication, and whether defendant was prejudiced as a result are complex questions that cannot and should not be resolved in errors patent review. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeal, reinstate the sentence, and remand to the court of appeal for consideration of the pretermitted claims.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

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

PER CURIAM

Writ granted. The court of appeal erred in finding as an error patent that the district court did not adhere to the 24-hour statutory sentencing delay required by La.C.Cr.P. art. 873. See State v. Dorsey , 18-0250 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/7/18), 260 So.3d 616. Whether the article requires a 24-hour sentencing delay between the denial of post-verdict motions and the commencement of a habitual offender adjudication, whether the article was violated under the circumstances here where the imposition of sentence did not occur until three weeks after the habitual offender adjudication, and whether defendant was prejudiced as a result are complex questions that cannot and should not be resolved in errors patent review. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeal, reinstate the sentence, and remand to the court of appeal for consideration of the pretermitted claims.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 So. 3d 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dorsey-la-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack