State v. Joseph

693 So. 2d 782, 1997 La. LEXIS 1624, 1997 WL 267550
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Joseph. Read the opinion of the Court — 637 So. 2d 1032
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided May 9, 1997·No. No. 96-K-2998·Published

Opinion

In re Joseph, Wilfred; — Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 95-0223; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 96-KA-0187.

Writ granted in part; denied in part. On remand for resentencing as to each of the three counts for which relator was convicted, the district court retains the discretion to provide expressly whether the penalties imposed shall run concurrently or consecutively. La.C.Cr.P. art. 883, Cmt. (“When the court does not expressly direct whether the sentences are to be served concurrently or consecutively, this article provides the rule of construction.”) The court should exercise its discretion in light of the original intent of the original sentencing judge. State v. Harris, 93-1098 (La. 1/5/96), 665 So.2d 1164. Cf., State v. Fraser, 484 So.2d 122 (La.1986). In all other respects, the application is denied.

LEMMON, J., not on panel; recused.

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

State v. Joseph, 693 So. 2d 782, 1997 La. LEXIS 1624, 1997 WL 267550 (La. 1997).

693 So. 2d 782 (State v. Joseph) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Fraser
484 So. 2d 122 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1986)
State v. Harris
665 So. 2d 1164 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1996)