State v. Marks

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Marks

591 So. 2d 356, 1991 La. App. LEXIS 3783, 1991 WL 245489

Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided August 23, 1991·No. No. K91-919·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

WRIT DENIED: Dilaudid is a narcotic drug, see La.R.S. 40:961(23) and R.S. 40:964 Schedule II(A)(1)(1), and the proper sentencing provision for Dilaudid is La.R.S. 40:967(B)(1). We note that our decision in this matter differs from that reached in State v. Jenkins, 573 So.2d 218 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990) and the footnote in State v. Cutrera, 558 So.2d 611 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990). We respectfully disagree with those decisions.

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

WRIT DENIED: Dilaudid is a narcotic drug, see La.R.S. 40:961(23) and R.S. 40:964 Schedule II(A)(1)(1), and the proper sentencing provision for Dilaudid is La.R.S. 40:967(B)(1). We note that our decision in this matter differs from that reached in State v. Jenkins, 573 So.2d 218 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990) and the footnote in State v. Cutrera, 558 So.2d 611 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990). We respectfully disagree with those decisions.

State v. Marks, 591 So. 2d 356, 1991 La. App. LEXIS 3783, 1991 WL 245489 (La. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

591 So. 2d 356 (State v. Marks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related