Home/Supreme Court of Louisiana/State v. Gilbert

State v. Gilbert

758 So. 2d 779, 2000 WL 141202
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 4, 2000
Docket99-OK-2338
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 758 So. 2d 779 (State v. Gilbert) 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. Gilbert, 758 So. 2d 779, 2000 WL 141202 (La. 2000).

Opinion

758 So.2d 779 (2000)

STATE of Louisiana
v.
O'Neil GILBERT.

No. 99-OK-2338.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 4, 2000.

PER CURIAM.[*]

Granted. This case is remanded to the court of appeal for purposes of reinstating the defendant's appeal and for rebriefing. A defendant may appeal from a judgment which imposes a sentence, La.C.Cr.P. art. 912(C)(1), and such appeals are "favored in the law ." State v. Bunnell, 508 So.2d 55 (La.1987). An appellate court therefore may not dismiss a timely and properly filed appeal on grounds that the district court may vacate sentence and resentence the defendant on a pending multiple offender *780 bill under La.R.S. 15:529.1. La. C.Cr.P. art. 916(8) vests jurisdiction in the district court to resentence the defendant as a multiple offender despite a pending appeal and thereby allows for prompt disposition of all issues related to punishment not only in the district court but also in an appellate court which otherwise has jurisdiction over the case. If the court of appeal has notice of a pending multiple bill and wishes to avoid piecemeal litigation, it may delay disposing of the appeal, direct the district court to expedite the hearing on defendant's multiple offender status, and, if necessary, exercise its authority under La.C.Cr.P. art. 914.1(C) to designate additional portions of the proceedings below as part of the appellate record for review, at any time before finality of its decision on the merits. La.C.Cr.P. art. 922; see State v. Taylor, 93-226 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/30/95), 656 So.2d 722.

NOTES

[*] Lemmon, J., not on panel. See La.S.Ct.Rule IV, Part II, § 3.

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

Related

State v. Runnels
101 So. 3d 1046 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
State v. Martinez
38 So. 3d 926 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2010)
State v. Riggins
885 So. 2d 42 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
State v. Hardan
882 So. 2d 625 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
State v. Darensbourg
871 So. 2d 533 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
State v. Alexander
871 So. 2d 483 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
State v. Garrus
849 So. 2d 796 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)
State v. Armant
839 So. 2d 271 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)
State v. Gilliam
807 So. 2d 1024 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)
State v. Perrilloux
802 So. 2d 772 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)
State v. Simmons
781 So. 2d 821 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
758 So. 2d 779, 2000 WL 141202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gilbert-la-2000.