State v. Woodward

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Woodward

50 So. 3d 147, 2010 La. LEXIS 2818, 2010 WL 5027805

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedDecember 10, 2010

DocketNo. 2009-KH-2396

StatusPublished

This text of 50 So. 3d 147 (State v. Woodward) 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. Woodward, 50 So. 3d 147, 2010 La. LEXIS 2818, 2010 WL 5027805 (La. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.¹

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied. The record shows that the contempt adju[148]*148dication did not comply with La.C.Cr.P. art. 22, which provides: “A person who has committed a direct contempt of court may be found guilty and punished therefor by the court without any trial, after affording him an opportunity to be heard orally by way of defense or mitigation.” See also In re Judge Sassone, 2007-0651 (La.6/29/07), 959 So.2d 859; State v. Williams, 97-1135 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/27/98), 714 So.2d 258. Here, relator was not afforded an opportunity to be heard orally by way of defense or mitigation. Therefore, the finding of direct contempt is reversed, and relator’s sentence of six months imprisonment for contempt is vacated. Relator’s request for a stay is rendered moot.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would deny.

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

PER CURIAM.¹

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied. The record shows that the contempt adju[148]*148dication did not comply with La.C.Cr.P. art. 22, which provides: “A person who has committed a direct contempt of court may be found guilty and punished therefor by the court without any trial, after affording him an opportunity to be heard orally by way of defense or mitigation.” See also In re Judge Sassone, 2007-0651 (La.6/29/07), 959 So.2d 859; State v. Williams, 97-1135 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/27/98), 714 So.2d 258. Here, relator was not afforded an opportunity to be heard orally by way of defense or mitigation. Therefore, the finding of direct contempt is reversed, and relator’s sentence of six months imprisonment for contempt is vacated. Relator’s request for a stay is rendered moot.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 So. 3d 147, 2010 La. LEXIS 2818, 2010 WL 5027805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-woodward-la-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack