State v. Lott

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Lott

269 So. 2d 822, 263 La. 941, 1972 La. LEXIS 5851

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 28, 1972

DocketNo. 52711

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 So. 2d 822 (State v. Lott) 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. Lott, 269 So. 2d 822, 263 La. 941, 1972 La. LEXIS 5851 (La. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Through Habeas Corpus proceedings the defendant, Rickey Lott, was granted an out of time appeal from a conviction of simple burglary, La.R.S. 14:62, for which he was sentenced to serve nine years in the State Penitentiary. On this appeal, defendant relies upon one bill of exceptions to obtain a reversal of his conviction and sentence.

The sole bill of exceptions was reserved after the verdict was returned, and prior to sentencing, when the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence was denied by the trial court. The basis for this motion was directed only to the sufficiency of the proof and not to the absence of evidence of an essential element of the offense. The evidence consisted of fingerprints taken from windowpanes removed during a burglary, which fingerprints were identified as identical with the defendant’s. This is some evidence. Upon review, we cannot inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence of guilt or innocence of the defendant. State v. Coleman, 260 La. 897, 257 So.2d 652 (1972); State v. Hochenedel, [944]*944253 La. 263, 217 So.2d 392 (1968). This bill lacks merit.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentenced are affirmed.

BARHAM, J., dissents. DIXON, J., concurs in the result.

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

PER CURIAM.

Through Habeas Corpus proceedings the defendant, Rickey Lott, was granted an out of time appeal from a conviction of simple burglary, La.R.S. 14:62, for which he was sentenced to serve nine years in the State Penitentiary. On this appeal, defendant relies upon one bill of exceptions to obtain a reversal of his conviction and sentence.

The sole bill of exceptions was reserved after the verdict was returned, and prior to sentencing, when the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence was denied by the trial court. The basis for this motion was directed only to the sufficiency of the proof and not to the absence of evidence of an essential element of the offense. The evidence consisted of fingerprints taken from windowpanes removed during a burglary, which fingerprints were identified as identical with the defendant’s. This is some evidence. Upon review, we cannot inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence of guilt or innocence of the defendant. State v. Coleman, 260 La. 897, 257 So.2d 652 (1972); State v. Hochenedel, [944]*944253 La. 263, 217 So.2d 392 (1968). This bill lacks merit.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentenced are affirmed.

BARHAM, J., dissents. DIXON, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 So. 2d 822, 263 La. 941, 1972 La. LEXIS 5851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lott-la-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack