State v. LaFleur

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. LaFleur

448 So. 2d 884, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8574

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 11, 1984

DocketNo. CR83-592

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 448 So. 2d 884 (State v. LaFleur) 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. LaFleur, 448 So. 2d 884, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8574 (La. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

GUIDRY, Judge.

On September 3, 1981, the defendant, John K. LaPleur, was charged by bill of information with attempting to secure controlled dangerous substances, Percodan and Tuinol, by means of fraudulent practices in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:27, LSA-R.S. 40:971(B) and LSA-R.S. 40:979. He was tried before a jury of six who returned a verdict of guilty as charged. On December 20, 1982, the defendant was sentenced to serve two and one-half years at hard labor in a state correctional facility. The defendant has appealed his conviction and sentence.

The defendant’s only assignment of error was not briefed for the court. Assignments not briefed are considered abandoned. State v. Dewey, 408 So.2d 1255 (La.1982). Therefore, the scope of appellate review in this case is limited to a review of the pleadings and proceedings, without inspection of the evidence, for errors patent. State v. Zeno, 322 So.2d 136 (La.1975). Accordingly, we have carefully examined the record in this case pursuant to the mandate of LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 920 and finding no errors patent on the face of the record, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

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

GUIDRY, Judge.

On September 3, 1981, the defendant, John K. LaPleur, was charged by bill of information with attempting to secure controlled dangerous substances, Percodan and Tuinol, by means of fraudulent practices in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:27, LSA-R.S. 40:971(B) and LSA-R.S. 40:979. He was tried before a jury of six who returned a verdict of guilty as charged. On December 20, 1982, the defendant was sentenced to serve two and one-half years at hard labor in a state correctional facility. The defendant has appealed his conviction and sentence.

The defendant’s only assignment of error was not briefed for the court. Assignments not briefed are considered abandoned. State v. Dewey, 408 So.2d 1255 (La.1982). Therefore, the scope of appellate review in this case is limited to a review of the pleadings and proceedings, without inspection of the evidence, for errors patent. State v. Zeno, 322 So.2d 136 (La.1975). Accordingly, we have carefully examined the record in this case pursuant to the mandate of LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 920 and finding no errors patent on the face of the record, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 So. 2d 884, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lafleur-lactapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack