State v. Etienne

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Etienne

712 So. 2d 981, 97 La.App. 3 Cir. 1383, 1998 La. App. LEXIS 1084, 1998 WL 207864

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Etienne. Read the opinion of the Court — 746 So. 2d 124 →

Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided April 29, 1998·No. No. CR97-1383·Published

Opinion

JjPER CURIAM.

The defendant, Daley Etienne, Jr., who was convicted of second degree battery, sentenced to serve three years at hard labor and ordered to pay restitution upon any determination of parole, appeals his sentence based on grounds that: (1) It was unconstitutionally excessive and (2) The trial court was without authority to impose restitution as a condition of parole. Given the nature of the present offense and the defendant’s prior criminal history, we hold that the sentencing court did not abuse its wide discretion in imposing a sentence that was within the statutory limits.

However, since “the legislature has vested the Board of Parole with the authority to impose conditions of parole” as it relates to victim restitution, the sentencing court acted without authority. State v. Conners, 577 So.2d 273 (La.App. 3 Cir.1991) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s sentence, but vacate the court’s order imposing restitution to the victim as a condition for parole.

AFFIRMED AND AMENDED.

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

JjPER CURIAM.

The defendant, Daley Etienne, Jr., who was convicted of second degree battery, sentenced to serve three years at hard labor and ordered to pay restitution upon any determination of parole, appeals his sentence based on grounds that: (1) It was unconstitutionally excessive and (2) The trial court was without authority to impose restitution as a condition of parole. Given the nature of the present offense and the defendant’s prior criminal history, we hold that the sentencing court did not abuse its wide discretion in imposing a sentence that was within the statutory limits.

However, since “the legislature has vested the Board of Parole with the authority to impose conditions of parole” as it relates to victim restitution, the sentencing court acted without authority. State v. Conners, 577 So.2d 273 (La.App. 3 Cir.1991) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s sentence, but vacate the court’s order imposing restitution to the victim as a condition for parole.

AFFIRMED AND AMENDED.

State v. Etienne, 712 So. 2d 981, 97 La.App. 3 Cir. 1383, 1998 La. App. LEXIS 1084, 1998 WL 207864 (La. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

712 So. 2d 981 (State v. Etienne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related