State v. Prince
Opinion
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Thomas E. PRINCE.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
*966 Granted in part; denied in part. The sentence imposed by the trial court is amended to delete the requirement of restitution. The relevant statutes, La.R.S. 14:27; La.R.S. 14:31; La.R.S.La. 14:44.1, do not authorize a district court to impose restitution in a felony case as part of an executory sentence of imprisonment. State v. Lee, 94-0814 (La. 6/17/94), 641 So.2d 206; State v. Patterson, 442 So.2d 442 (La.1983). Compare La.R.S. 14:67.3(F) (authorizing restitution as part of sentence for theft); La.C.Cr.P. art. 895.1 (authorizing restitution as a condition of probation); La.R.S. 15:574.4(J) (authorizing restitution as a condition of parole). In all other respects the application is denied.
JOHNSON, J., not on panel.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
701 So. 2d 965 (State v. Prince) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.