State v. Estevez

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Estevez

508 So. 2d 908, 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9597

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 3, 1987

DocketNo. KA 6919

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 508 So. 2d 908 (State v. Estevez) 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. Estevez, 508 So. 2d 908, 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9597 (La. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHOTT, Judge.

Defendant was charged with simple burglary, in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:62, was [909]*909convicted after a bench trial, and was sentenced to three years at hard labor and ordered to pay court costs of $87.50 or serve thirty days in default of payment of the costs.

In our review of the record for errors patent we find none except that the imposition of the extra thirty days in default of the payment of court costs must be deleted in accordance with State v. Garrett, 484 So.2d 662 (La.1986) and State v. Williams, 484 So.2d 662 (La.1986).

In his only assignment of error defendant contends that the state’s failure to make an opening statement was in violation of C.Cr.P. art. 766 and that this was prejudicial to his case. Defendant’s failure to make a contemporaneous objection precludes him from raising the issue on appeal. State v. Mitchell, 362 So.2d 501 (La.1978). Furthermore, since this was a bench trial an opening statement was not mandatory. Id. Finally, as in the cited case, defendant’s argument falls short of a convincing demonstration of unfair surprise or prejudice.

Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed but the sentence is amended to delete that portion which imposes an additional thirty days in default of the payment of court costs.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE AMENDED.

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

SCHOTT, Judge.

Defendant was charged with simple burglary, in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:62, was [909]*909convicted after a bench trial, and was sentenced to three years at hard labor and ordered to pay court costs of $87.50 or serve thirty days in default of payment of the costs.

In our review of the record for errors patent we find none except that the imposition of the extra thirty days in default of the payment of court costs must be deleted in accordance with State v. Garrett, 484 So.2d 662 (La.1986) and State v. Williams, 484 So.2d 662 (La.1986).

In his only assignment of error defendant contends that the state’s failure to make an opening statement was in violation of C.Cr.P. art. 766 and that this was prejudicial to his case. Defendant’s failure to make a contemporaneous objection precludes him from raising the issue on appeal. State v. Mitchell, 362 So.2d 501 (La.1978). Furthermore, since this was a bench trial an opening statement was not mandatory. Id. Finally, as in the cited case, defendant’s argument falls short of a convincing demonstration of unfair surprise or prejudice.

Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed but the sentence is amended to delete that portion which imposes an additional thirty days in default of the payment of court costs.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE AMENDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 908, 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-estevez-lactapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack