State v. Thomas

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Thomas

778 So. 2d 1126, 2001 La. LEXIS 235, 2001 WL 69527

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 26, 2001

DocketNo. 2000-K-0129

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 778 So. 2d 1126 (State v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 778 So. 2d 1126, 2001 La. LEXIS 235, 2001 WL 69527 (La. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

*

Granted. The trial court erred in sentencing respondent to the drug diversion probation program pursuant to the provisions of La. R .S. 13:5304 in the absence of a recommendation by the District Attorney. See State v. Taylor, 99-2935 (La.10/17/00), 769 So.2d 535. To the extent that La. R.S. 13:5304(B)(3)(a) requires that the defendant plead guilty to the [1127]*1127charge(s) against him if he or she is accepted into the drug diversion probation program, and respondent in his opposition to the state’s application in this Court requests a new trial if he may no longer participate in the drug diversion probation program, respondent’s convictions and sentences are reversed and this case is remanded to the district court for purposes of providing respondent with the opportunity to plead anew to the charges against him.

JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ application for the reasons assigned in Taylor.

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

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

PER CURIAM:

*

Granted. The trial court erred in sentencing respondent to the drug diversion probation program pursuant to the provisions of La. R .S. 13:5304 in the absence of a recommendation by the District Attorney. See State v. Taylor, 99-2935 (La.10/17/00), 769 So.2d 535. To the extent that La. R.S. 13:5304(B)(3)(a) requires that the defendant plead guilty to the [1127]*1127charge(s) against him if he or she is accepted into the drug diversion probation program, and respondent in his opposition to the state’s application in this Court requests a new trial if he may no longer participate in the drug diversion probation program, respondent’s convictions and sentences are reversed and this case is remanded to the district court for purposes of providing respondent with the opportunity to plead anew to the charges against him.

JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ application for the reasons assigned in Taylor.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

778 So. 2d 1126, 2001 La. LEXIS 235, 2001 WL 69527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thomas-la-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack