State v. Rockhold

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Rockhold

752 So. 2d 158, 2000 La. LEXIS 392, 2000 WL 166264

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 11, 2000

DocketNo. 1999-K-2445

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 752 So. 2d 158 (State v. Rockhold) 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. Rockhold, 752 So. 2d 158, 2000 La. LEXIS 392, 2000 WL 166264 (La. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*

Granted in part; denied in part. The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed only insofar as it amends the term of imprisonment imposed by the successor judge from 15 years at hard labor to 10 years at hard labor, the term imposed by the original sentencing judge. The term of 15 years at hard labor is reinstated as otherwise amended to delete the denial of parole eligibility. The district court is directed to make an entry in the minutes reflecting this.change. When it chose to vacate the sentence imposed by the original sentencing judge and to remand for resentencing, instead of simply deleting the illegal conditions placed on that sentence, as it could have, see, e.g., State v. Watts, 98-2594 (La.1/29/99), 736 So.2d 821; State ex rel. Meeks v. State, 98-1930 (La.1/29/99), 736 So.2d 820, the court of appeal authorized the successor judge to impose the first lawful penalty in the case. State v. Husband, 593 So.2d 1257, 1258 (La.1992). Without regard to the question of whether a successor judge must consider the intent of the original sentencing judge when correcting an illegally harsh penalty as well as an illegally lenient one, see State v. Harris, 93-1098 (La.1/5/96), 665 So.2d 1164, the successor judge in this case had the discretion to consider the intent of original sentencing judge and to resentence the defendant in a manner which effectuates as much of the original sentencing plan as the law allows. In all other respects, the application is denied.

Lemmon, J., not on panel. See La. S.Ct. Rule IV, Part II, § 3.

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

PER CURIAM.

*

Granted in part; denied in part. The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed only insofar as it amends the term of imprisonment imposed by the successor judge from 15 years at hard labor to 10 years at hard labor, the term imposed by the original sentencing judge. The term of 15 years at hard labor is reinstated as otherwise amended to delete the denial of parole eligibility. The district court is directed to make an entry in the minutes reflecting this.change. When it chose to vacate the sentence imposed by the original sentencing judge and to remand for resentencing, instead of simply deleting the illegal conditions placed on that sentence, as it could have, see, e.g., State v. Watts, 98-2594 (La.1/29/99), 736 So.2d 821; State ex rel. Meeks v. State, 98-1930 (La.1/29/99), 736 So.2d 820, the court of appeal authorized the successor judge to impose the first lawful penalty in the case. State v. Husband, 593 So.2d 1257, 1258 (La.1992). Without regard to the question of whether a successor judge must consider the intent of the original sentencing judge when correcting an illegally harsh penalty as well as an illegally lenient one, see State v. Harris, 93-1098 (La.1/5/96), 665 So.2d 1164, the successor judge in this case had the discretion to consider the intent of original sentencing judge and to resentence the defendant in a manner which effectuates as much of the original sentencing plan as the law allows. In all other respects, the application is denied.

Lemmon, J., not on panel. See La. S.Ct. Rule IV, Part II, § 3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 158, 2000 La. LEXIS 392, 2000 WL 166264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rockhold-la-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack