State v. Hayes

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Hayes

865 So. 2d 692, 2004 La. LEXIS 17, 2004 WL 67979

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 16, 2004

DocketNo. 2003-OK-1835

StatusPublished

This text of 865 So. 2d 692 (State v. Hayes) 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. Hayes, 865 So. 2d 692, 2004 La. LEXIS 17, 2004 WL 67979 (La. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The judgment of the district court assessing attorneys fees against the state for its failure to raise in a more timely manner its procedural objections to the application for post-conviction relief filed in the present case is set aside. The district court did not order the state to file its procedural objections as a matter of La.C.Cr.P. art. 927 at any time, and the court had no basis in law or in fact for sanctioning the state after it filed and ultimately prevailed on its procedural objection that the claim, asserting discrimination in the selection of the grand jury which returned the indictment, had been defaulted on the merits by trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to quash. See Deloche v. Whitley, 96-1901, p. 1 (La.11/22/96), 684 So.2d 349.

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

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The judgment of the district court assessing attorneys fees against the state for its failure to raise in a more timely manner its procedural objections to the application for post-conviction relief filed in the present case is set aside. The district court did not order the state to file its procedural objections as a matter of La.C.Cr.P. art. 927 at any time, and the court had no basis in law or in fact for sanctioning the state after it filed and ultimately prevailed on its procedural objection that the claim, asserting discrimination in the selection of the grand jury which returned the indictment, had been defaulted on the merits by trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to quash. See Deloche v. Whitley, 96-1901, p. 1 (La.11/22/96), 684 So.2d 349.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

865 So. 2d 692, 2004 La. LEXIS 17, 2004 WL 67979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hayes-la-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack