State v. Lane

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Lane

665 So. 2d 496, 95 La.App. 5 Cir. 463, 1995 La. App. LEXIS 3284, 1995 WL 676336

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 15, 1995

DocketNo. 95-KA-463

StatusPublished

This text of 665 So. 2d 496 (State v. Lane) 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. Lane, 665 So. 2d 496, 95 La.App. 5 Cir. 463, 1995 La. App. LEXIS 3284, 1995 WL 676336 (La. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

GAUDIN, Judge.

Darnell Lane filed this Crosby¹ appeal after his motion to suppress evidence was denied and after his plea of guilty to possession of cocaine. He was sentenced to 21 months at hard labor to run concurrent with time being served because of a parole revocation. Lane participated in and apparently benefited from a plea bargaining process.

At the suppression hearing, the arresting police officer gave his reasons for pursuing and then arresting Lane. If the officer’s testimony is found valid and credible, as no doubt it was, the prosecution met its burden of showing that the arrest and search of Lane was with probable cause. Accordingly, the evidence seized was incident to the lawful arrest. See State v. Raheem, 464 So.2d 293 (La.1985); and State v. DeBlanc, 549 So.2d 1287 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989), writs denied at 558 So.2d 599 (La.1990).

While Lane did testify at the sentencing hearing, he did not testify when his motion to suppress was heard.

At the time of sentencing, Lane was not advised of the prescriptive period for post-conviction relief as mandated by LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(C). The trial judge is instructed to inform Lane of this article’s provisions by sending appropriate written notice to him within ten days of the rendition of this opinion and to file proof of receipt in the record of these proceedings.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS, OTHERWISE AFFIRMED.

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

GAUDIN, Judge.

Darnell Lane filed this Crosby¹ appeal after his motion to suppress evidence was denied and after his plea of guilty to possession of cocaine. He was sentenced to 21 months at hard labor to run concurrent with time being served because of a parole revocation. Lane participated in and apparently benefited from a plea bargaining process.

At the suppression hearing, the arresting police officer gave his reasons for pursuing and then arresting Lane. If the officer’s testimony is found valid and credible, as no doubt it was, the prosecution met its burden of showing that the arrest and search of Lane was with probable cause. Accordingly, the evidence seized was incident to the lawful arrest. See State v. Raheem, 464 So.2d 293 (La.1985); and State v. DeBlanc, 549 So.2d 1287 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989), writs denied at 558 So.2d 599 (La.1990).

While Lane did testify at the sentencing hearing, he did not testify when his motion to suppress was heard.

At the time of sentencing, Lane was not advised of the prescriptive period for post-conviction relief as mandated by LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(C). The trial judge is instructed to inform Lane of this article’s provisions by sending appropriate written notice to him within ten days of the rendition of this opinion and to file proof of receipt in the record of these proceedings.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS, OTHERWISE AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

665 So. 2d 496, 95 La.App. 5 Cir. 463, 1995 La. App. LEXIS 3284, 1995 WL 676336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lane-lactapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack