State v. Lensey

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Lensey

333 So. 2d 645, 1976 La. LEXIS 5379

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 4, 1976

DocketNo. 57439

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 333 So. 2d 645 (State v. Lensey) 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. Lensey, 333 So. 2d 645, 1976 La. LEXIS 5379 (La. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Richard Lensey was charged by bill of information with attempted arm[646]*646ed robbery. La.R.S. 14:27; La.R.S. 14:64. He attempted to rob Mrs. Lurline Vinci at the Vinci Grocery in Shreveport, Louisiana, and, while fleeing, fired a weapon at the victim. On June 25, 1975 defendant withdrew his original plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged. Subsequently he was sentenced to serve twenty (20) years at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Relying on one assignment of error, defendant appeals from the imposition of this sentence.

Defendant contends that his sentence to twenty years at hard labor is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual by virtue of its excessiveness. U.S.Const, amend. VIII; La. Const. art. I, § 20 (1974). There is no merit to this assignment. See State v. McClinton, 329 So.2d 676 (La.1976). Furthermore, we find no errors which are discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings. La.C.Cr.P. art. 920.

Accordingly defendant’s sentence is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Richard Lensey was charged by bill of information with attempted arm[646]*646ed robbery. La.R.S. 14:27; La.R.S. 14:64. He attempted to rob Mrs. Lurline Vinci at the Vinci Grocery in Shreveport, Louisiana, and, while fleeing, fired a weapon at the victim. On June 25, 1975 defendant withdrew his original plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged. Subsequently he was sentenced to serve twenty (20) years at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Relying on one assignment of error, defendant appeals from the imposition of this sentence.

Defendant contends that his sentence to twenty years at hard labor is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual by virtue of its excessiveness. U.S.Const, amend. VIII; La. Const. art. I, § 20 (1974). There is no merit to this assignment. See State v. McClinton, 329 So.2d 676 (La.1976). Furthermore, we find no errors which are discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings. La.C.Cr.P. art. 920.

Accordingly defendant’s sentence is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 So. 2d 645, 1976 La. LEXIS 5379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lensey-la-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack