State v. Reviere

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Reviere

759 So. 2d 79, 2000 La. LEXIS 1063

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 7, 2000

DocketNo. 1999-KP-3118

StatusPublished

This text of 759 So. 2d 79 (State v. Reviere) 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. Reviere, 759 So. 2d 79, 2000 La. LEXIS 1063 (La. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Reviere, Huey;- — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court, Div. O, Nos. CR703-88, 4112-88; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 99 01249

Writ granted; original consecutive sentences of 21 years imprisonment are hard labor and 10 years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence reinstated. The district court lacked authority to amend relator’s hard labor sentences after he had begun to serve them. La.C.Cr.P. art. 881(A); La.C.Cr.P. art. 881(C); R.S. 15:566.2; State v. Branch, 96-1626, pp. 5-9 (La.App. 3rd Cir.5/21/97), 696 So.2d 81, 83-85; see also State v. Gedric, 99-1213 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/3/99), 741 So.2d 849, writ denied, 99-1830 (La.11/5/99), 751 So.2d 239. In addition, because the district court’s judgment did not constitute a sentencing, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 871(A), the procedural requirements of La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.1 do not bar review; see also La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.2(B).

VICTORY, J., not on panel.

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

In re Reviere, Huey;- — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court, Div. O, Nos. CR703-88, 4112-88; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 99 01249

Writ granted; original consecutive sentences of 21 years imprisonment are hard labor and 10 years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence reinstated. The district court lacked authority to amend relator’s hard labor sentences after he had begun to serve them. La.C.Cr.P. art. 881(A); La.C.Cr.P. art. 881(C); R.S. 15:566.2; State v. Branch, 96-1626, pp. 5-9 (La.App. 3rd Cir.5/21/97), 696 So.2d 81, 83-85; see also State v. Gedric, 99-1213 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/3/99), 741 So.2d 849, writ denied, 99-1830 (La.11/5/99), 751 So.2d 239. In addition, because the district court’s judgment did not constitute a sentencing, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 871(A), the procedural requirements of La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.1 do not bar review; see also La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.2(B).

VICTORY, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

759 So. 2d 79, 2000 La. LEXIS 1063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-reviere-la-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack