State v. Roebuck

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Roebuck

657 So. 2d 1009, 1995 La. LEXIS 1748, 1995 WL 407836

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 30, 1995

DocketNo. 94-KH-1127

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 657 So. 2d 1009 (State v. Roebuck) 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. Roebuck, 657 So. 2d 1009, 1995 La. LEXIS 1748, 1995 WL 407836 (La. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Roebuck, Terril; — Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 326-181; Criminal District Court, Div. “I”, No. 333-982; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 94KW-0417.

Granted for the purpose of transferring the application to the district court for a determination of indigence. If the district court finds that relator is currently indigent, it is ordered to delete only that portion of relator’s sentence which provides for a jail term in the event of default of payment of the fine. An indigent may not be incarcerated because he is unable to pay a fine which is part of his sentence. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1963); State ex rel. Rodriguez v. State, 576 So.2d 518 (La.1991); State v. Coleman, 576 So.2d 518 (La.1991).

JOHNSON, J., not on panel.

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

In re Roebuck, Terril; — Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 326-181; Criminal District Court, Div. “I”, No. 333-982; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 94KW-0417.

Granted for the purpose of transferring the application to the district court for a determination of indigence. If the district court finds that relator is currently indigent, it is ordered to delete only that portion of relator’s sentence which provides for a jail term in the event of default of payment of the fine. An indigent may not be incarcerated because he is unable to pay a fine which is part of his sentence. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1963); State ex rel. Rodriguez v. State, 576 So.2d 518 (La.1991); State v. Coleman, 576 So.2d 518 (La.1991).

JOHNSON, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

657 So. 2d 1009, 1995 La. LEXIS 1748, 1995 WL 407836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-roebuck-la-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack