State v. Hawkins

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Hawkins

267 So. 2d 185, 263 La. 36, 1972 La. LEXIS 5386

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 4, 1972

DocketNo. 52407

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 So. 2d 185 (State v. Hawkins) 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. Hawkins, 267 So. 2d 185, 263 La. 36, 1972 La. LEXIS 5386 (La. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants, Houston J. Hawkins and David H. Smith, were tried by a jury and convicted of the crime of armed robbery. Each was sentenced to serve twenty-five years in the state penitentiary at hard labor. La.R.S. 14:64.

While the defendants reserved and perfected two bills of exceptions during their trial, counsel only argues bill of exceptions No. 2, contending that the penalty provision under La.R.S. 14:64 constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and denies the defendants equal protection of the laws under Art. I, Section 12, of the La.Constitution of 1921, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. In support of their argument, defendants allege that there was no showing that they were habitual criminals and that no pre-sentence investigation was requested by the trial judge.

As these identical issues were rejected in State v. Howard, decided June 5, 1972, 262 La. 270, 263 So.2d 32, we adopt our previous position for the reasons assigned.

We have examined the defendants’ remaining .first bill of exceptions, though not argued in brief, and find it discloses no-reversible error.

For these reasons, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendants, Houston J. Hawkins and David H. Smith, were tried by a jury and convicted of the crime of armed robbery. Each was sentenced to serve twenty-five years in the state penitentiary at hard labor. La.R.S. 14:64.

While the defendants reserved and perfected two bills of exceptions during their trial, counsel only argues bill of exceptions No. 2, contending that the penalty provision under La.R.S. 14:64 constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and denies the defendants equal protection of the laws under Art. I, Section 12, of the La.Constitution of 1921, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. In support of their argument, defendants allege that there was no showing that they were habitual criminals and that no pre-sentence investigation was requested by the trial judge.

As these identical issues were rejected in State v. Howard, decided June 5, 1972, 262 La. 270, 263 So.2d 32, we adopt our previous position for the reasons assigned.

We have examined the defendants’ remaining .first bill of exceptions, though not argued in brief, and find it discloses no-reversible error.

For these reasons, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 So. 2d 185, 263 La. 36, 1972 La. LEXIS 5386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hawkins-la-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack