State v. Lemelle

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Lemelle

964 So. 2d 316, 2007 La. LEXIS 1870, 2007 WL 2683759

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedSeptember 14, 2007

DocketNo. 2006-K-2975

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 964 So. 2d 316 (State v. Lemelle) 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. Lemelle, 964 So. 2d 316, 2007 La. LEXIS 1870, 2007 WL 2683759 (La. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. A fair reading of the plea form and Boykin colloquy reveals that an agreement was reached in which the defendant’s sentencing exposure would be capped at 10 years provided that a pre-sentence investigation did not determine that the defendant had more than one prior conviction at that time. Although the presentence report revealed other criminal history, it did not show any other prior conviction(s) than the one acknowledged by defendant during the Boykin hearing. Under these circumstances, as Chief Judge Thibodeaux observed, State v. Lemelle, 06-0371 (La.App. 3rd Cir.9/27/06), 937 So.2d 444, 2006 WL 2806580(unpub’d)(Thibodeaux, C.J., dissenting), defendant is entitled to the enforcement of his plea agreement. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); State v. Hayes, 423 So.2d 1111, 1112-15 (La.1982). The ruling of the court below is therefore reversed, the sentences imposed vacated, and the matter remanded for resentencing in accord with the plea agreement.

TRAYLOR and KNOLL, JJ., would deny the writ.

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

PER CURIAM.

Granted. A fair reading of the plea form and Boykin colloquy reveals that an agreement was reached in which the defendant’s sentencing exposure would be capped at 10 years provided that a pre-sentence investigation did not determine that the defendant had more than one prior conviction at that time. Although the presentence report revealed other criminal history, it did not show any other prior conviction(s) than the one acknowledged by defendant during the Boykin hearing. Under these circumstances, as Chief Judge Thibodeaux observed, State v. Lemelle, 06-0371 (La.App. 3rd Cir.9/27/06), 937 So.2d 444, 2006 WL 2806580(unpub’d)(Thibodeaux, C.J., dissenting), defendant is entitled to the enforcement of his plea agreement. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); State v. Hayes, 423 So.2d 1111, 1112-15 (La.1982). The ruling of the court below is therefore reversed, the sentences imposed vacated, and the matter remanded for resentencing in accord with the plea agreement.

TRAYLOR and KNOLL, JJ., would deny the writ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

964 So. 2d 316, 2007 La. LEXIS 1870, 2007 WL 2683759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lemelle-la-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack