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

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 29, 1998

DocketNo. CR97-1383

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

712 So. 2d 981, 97 La.App. 3 Cir. 1383, 1998 La. App. LEXIS 1084, 1998 WL 207864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-etienne-lactapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack