Home/Supreme Court of Louisiana/State v. Soraparu

State v. Soraparu

703 So. 2d 608, 1997 WL 662232
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedOctober 13, 1997
Docket97-K-1027
StatusPublished
Cited by93 cases

This text of 703 So. 2d 608 (State v. Soraparu) 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. Soraparu, 703 So. 2d 608, 1997 WL 662232 (La. 1997).

Opinion

703 So.2d 608 (1997)

STATE of Louisiana
v.
George SORAPARU.

No. 97-K-1027.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 13, 1997.

PER CURIAM[*].

Granted in part. The decision of the Fourth Circuit is reversed insofar as it vacates the defendant's sentence and remands for resentencing before a different judge, and the sentence imposed by the trial court is reinstated. On appellate review of sentence, the only relevant question is "`whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.'" State v. Cook, 95-2784, p. 3 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957, 959 (quoting State v. Humphrey, 445 So.2d 1155, 1165 (La.1984)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996). For legal sentences imposed within the range provided by the legislature, a trial court abuses its discretion only when it contravenes the prohibition of excessive punishment in La. Const. art. I, § 20, i.e., when it imposes "punishment disproportionate to the offense." State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 767 (La.1979). In cases in which the trial court has left a less than fully articulated record indicating that it has considered not only aggravating circumstances but also factors militating for a less severe sentence, State v. Franks, 373 So.2d 1307, 1308 (La.1979), a remand for resentencing is appropriate only when "there appear[s] to be a substantial possibility that the defendant's complaints of an excessive sentence ha[ve] merit." State v. Wimberly, 414 So.2d 666, 672 (La.1982). The trial court's finding in this case that the defendant committed a "cold and deliberate act" which would have fully justified the return of a verdict of second degree murder adequately supports the sentence imposed.

CALOGERO, C.J. and LEMMON, J., would grant and docket.

JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ.

NOTES

[*] KNOLL, J., not on panel. See Rule IV, Part 2, § 3.

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

Related

State v. Louis
259 So. 3d 1133 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2018)
State v. Lafleur
209 So. 3d 927 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
State v. Dove
194 So. 3d 92 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2016)
State v. Boyd
164 So. 3d 259 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2015)
State v. Ancalade
158 So. 3d 891 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2015)
State v. Mosby
155 So. 3d 99 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014)
State v. Jasper
149 So. 3d 1239 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014)
State v. Norah
131 So. 3d 172 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)
State v. Hamdalla
126 So. 3d 619 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)
State v. Hollins
123 So. 3d 840 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)
State v. Jones
119 So. 3d 859 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)
State v. Chaplain
114 So. 3d 1274 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)
State v. Slattery
116 So. 3d 804 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)
State v. Parker
112 So. 3d 366 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2013)
State v. Sims
106 So. 3d 709 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
State v. Sam
105 So. 3d 988 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
State v. Wilson
99 So. 3d 1067 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
State v. Boudreaux
98 So. 3d 881 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
State v. Colvin
85 So. 3d 663 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2012)
State v. Knight
77 So. 3d 302 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
703 So. 2d 608, 1997 WL 662232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-soraparu-la-1997.