State v. Smith

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Smith

777 So. 2d 1223, 2001 La. LEXIS 522, 2001 WL 103877

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 2, 2001

DocketNo. 2000-KP-1681

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 777 So. 2d 1223 (State v. Smith) 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. Smith, 777 So. 2d 1223, 2001 La. LEXIS 522, 2001 WL 103877 (La. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

*

Writ denied. The result is correct. Though R.S. 15:571.3(C)(l)(q) does not apply to relator because he was not adjudicated an habitual offender under R.S. 15:529.1, see R.S. 15:571.3(0(2), the Department of Public Safety and Corrections has denied relator eligibility for diminution of sentence pursuant to R.S. 15:571.3 (“good time”) by virtue of R.S. 15:571.3(B), which prohibits good time eligibility for those convicted twice of a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(13). See 1994 La. Acts.3d Ex.Sess. 150. Though relator might prevail on a claim that the erroneous advice of counsel induced him to enter an unknowing and involuntary plea, see generally State ex rel. Aleman v. State, 99-0488 (La.10/1/99), 745 So.2d 601; State v. Scott, 93-0401 (La.3/17/95), 651 So.2d 1344; State v. Manchester, 545 So.2d 528, 529 (La.1989); Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Procedure, § 20.2(f) (quoting McAleney v. United States, 539 F.2d 282 (1st Cir.1976)), relator fails to carry his burden of proof that he acted on the basis of any such advice. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

James C. Gulotta, Justice Pro Tempore, sitting for associate justice, Hariy T. Lemmon.

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

PER CURIAM:

*

Writ denied. The result is correct. Though R.S. 15:571.3(C)(l)(q) does not apply to relator because he was not adjudicated an habitual offender under R.S. 15:529.1, see R.S. 15:571.3(0(2), the Department of Public Safety and Corrections has denied relator eligibility for diminution of sentence pursuant to R.S. 15:571.3 (“good time”) by virtue of R.S. 15:571.3(B), which prohibits good time eligibility for those convicted twice of a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(13). See 1994 La. Acts.3d Ex.Sess. 150. Though relator might prevail on a claim that the erroneous advice of counsel induced him to enter an unknowing and involuntary plea, see generally State ex rel. Aleman v. State, 99-0488 (La.10/1/99), 745 So.2d 601; State v. Scott, 93-0401 (La.3/17/95), 651 So.2d 1344; State v. Manchester, 545 So.2d 528, 529 (La.1989); Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Procedure, § 20.2(f) (quoting McAleney v. United States, 539 F.2d 282 (1st Cir.1976)), relator fails to carry his burden of proof that he acted on the basis of any such advice. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

James C. Gulotta, Justice Pro Tempore, sitting for associate justice, Hariy T. Lemmon.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

777 So. 2d 1223, 2001 La. LEXIS 522, 2001 WL 103877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-la-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack