State v. Nunez

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Nunez

438 So. 2d 1236, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 9306

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 12, 1983

DocketNo. CR83-181

StatusPublished

This text of 438 So. 2d 1236 (State v. Nunez) 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. Nunez, 438 So. 2d 1236, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 9306 (La. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

GUIDRY, Judge.

On September 10, 1982, the defendant, Thomas (Tommy) C. Nunez, was convicted, by unanimous verdict of a twelve person jury, of one count of armed robbery, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:64. On September 24, 1982, the defendant was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. The defendant has appealed his conviction and sentence.

The defendant made no assignments of error, pursuant to LSA-C.Cr.P. Article 844. Therefore, the scope of appellate review in this case is limited to a review of the pleadings and proceedings, without inspection of the evidence, for errors patent. State v. Zeno, 322 So.2d 136 (La.1975). Accordingly, we have carefully examined the record in this case pursuant to the mandate of LSA-C.Cr.P. Article 920 and finding no errors patent on the face of the record, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

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

GUIDRY, Judge.

On September 10, 1982, the defendant, Thomas (Tommy) C. Nunez, was convicted, by unanimous verdict of a twelve person jury, of one count of armed robbery, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:64. On September 24, 1982, the defendant was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. The defendant has appealed his conviction and sentence.

The defendant made no assignments of error, pursuant to LSA-C.Cr.P. Article 844. Therefore, the scope of appellate review in this case is limited to a review of the pleadings and proceedings, without inspection of the evidence, for errors patent. State v. Zeno, 322 So.2d 136 (La.1975). Accordingly, we have carefully examined the record in this case pursuant to the mandate of LSA-C.Cr.P. Article 920 and finding no errors patent on the face of the record, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

438 So. 2d 1236, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 9306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nunez-lactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack