State v. Rush

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Rush

450 So. 2d 726, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8791

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 10, 1984

DocketNo. KA-1337

StatusPublished

This text of 450 So. 2d 726 (State v. Rush) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Rush, 450 So. 2d 726, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8791 (La. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAMS, Judge.

Defendant Wilbert Rush was charged by bill of information with burglary of an inhabited dwelling in violation of La.R.S. 14:62.2; he pleaded not guilty. He filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his home. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Defendant withdrew his previous plea and pleaded guilty. He was found to be a multiple offender and sentenced to four years at hard labor, the first of which is to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Defendant moved for and was granted an appeal under State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976), reserving his right to appeal the ruling on the motion to suppress.

On appeal, the defense has requested only that we review the record for errors patent. We find no errors patent.

Because a defendant cannot appeal from a guilty plea other than in a Crosby situation, it is arguable that this appeal should be dismissed. Out of an abundance of caution, however, we have reviewed the record to determine the correctness of the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress and find no error.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

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

WILLIAMS, Judge.

Defendant Wilbert Rush was charged by bill of information with burglary of an inhabited dwelling in violation of La.R.S. 14:62.2; he pleaded not guilty. He filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his home. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Defendant withdrew his previous plea and pleaded guilty. He was found to be a multiple offender and sentenced to four years at hard labor, the first of which is to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Defendant moved for and was granted an appeal under State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976), reserving his right to appeal the ruling on the motion to suppress.

On appeal, the defense has requested only that we review the record for errors patent. We find no errors patent.

Because a defendant cannot appeal from a guilty plea other than in a Crosby situation, it is arguable that this appeal should be dismissed. Out of an abundance of caution, however, we have reviewed the record to determine the correctness of the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress and find no error.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 So. 2d 726, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rush-lactapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack