State v. Peterson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Peterson

108 So. 3d 781, 2013 WL 829017, 2013 La. LEXIS 501

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 1, 2013

DocketNo. 2012-KO-1620

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 108 So. 3d 781 (State v. Peterson) 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. Peterson, 108 So. 3d 781, 2013 WL 829017, 2013 La. LEXIS 501 (La. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

[782]*782In re Peterson, Ron; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 503203; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 2292.

Granted. This case is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of defendant’s excessive sentence claim. Given defendant’s initial motion to reconsider when the court imposed its original sentence, counsel’s objection at the close of the habitual offender hearing to the “harsh” sentence imposed by the court which significantly increased defendant’s term of imprisonment adequately preserved a bare claim of excessiveness for review. Cf. State v. Chisolm, 99-1055, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/27/00), 771 So.2d 205, 212 (failure to file motion to reconsider sentence following habitual offender adjudication waived review for excessive on appeal although defendant moved to reconsider sentence originally imposed, but specifically noting that “no oral objection was made to the sentence at the multiple bill hearing.”), writ denied, 00-2965 (La.9/28/01), 798 So.2d 106.

CLARK, J., would deny. HUGHES, J., recused.

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

[782]*782In re Peterson, Ron; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 503203; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 2292.

Granted. This case is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of defendant’s excessive sentence claim. Given defendant’s initial motion to reconsider when the court imposed its original sentence, counsel’s objection at the close of the habitual offender hearing to the “harsh” sentence imposed by the court which significantly increased defendant’s term of imprisonment adequately preserved a bare claim of excessiveness for review. Cf. State v. Chisolm, 99-1055, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/27/00), 771 So.2d 205, 212 (failure to file motion to reconsider sentence following habitual offender adjudication waived review for excessive on appeal although defendant moved to reconsider sentence originally imposed, but specifically noting that “no oral objection was made to the sentence at the multiple bill hearing.”), writ denied, 00-2965 (La.9/28/01), 798 So.2d 106.

CLARK, J., would deny. HUGHES, J., recused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 So. 3d 781, 2013 WL 829017, 2013 La. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-peterson-la-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack