State v. Perry

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Perry

183 So. 3d 509, 2016 La. LEXIS 140

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 5, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-K-0510

StatusPublished

This text of 183 So. 3d 509 (State v. Perry) 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. Perry, 183 So. 3d 509, 2016 La. LEXIS 140 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinions

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson.

| iWrit granted. The order of the court of appeal is reversed and the trial court’s ruling awarding restitution to the victim is reinstated. Defendant pleaded guilty as charged to theft over $1,500 pursuant to a plea agreement, according to which he agreed to pay restitution in an amount to be determined by the court after a hearing. Restitution cannot always be determined with exactitude, and a trial court therefore has great discretion in setting the amount, as long as the trial court complies with La.C.Cr.P. art. 883.2. Here, the state presented witnesses at the hearing to establish the extent of the losses incurred as a result of defendant’s theft, and a review of that testimony indicates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding “actual pecuniary loss” and fixing the amount of restitution due.

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

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson.

| iWrit granted. The order of the court of appeal is reversed and the trial court’s ruling awarding restitution to the victim is reinstated. Defendant pleaded guilty as charged to theft over $1,500 pursuant to a plea agreement, according to which he agreed to pay restitution in an amount to be determined by the court after a hearing. Restitution cannot always be determined with exactitude, and a trial court therefore has great discretion in setting the amount, as long as the trial court complies with La.C.Cr.P. art. 883.2. Here, the state presented witnesses at the hearing to establish the extent of the losses incurred as a result of defendant’s theft, and a review of that testimony indicates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding “actual pecuniary loss” and fixing the amount of restitution due.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 3d 509, 2016 La. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-perry-la-2016.