State v. Young

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Young

492 So. 2d 188, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7260

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 26, 1986

DocketNo. KA-5512

StatusPublished

This text of 492 So. 2d 188 (State v. Young) 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. Young, 492 So. 2d 188, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7260 (La. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

KLEES, Judge.

On December 20, 1985, the appellant was charged with distributing a substance falsely represented to be cocaine. He was arraigned on January 7, 1986, and pled not guilty. On February 13th a six-member jury found him guilty of attempted distribution of a substance falsely represented to be cocaine. His motion for post judgment verdict of acquittal was denied on February 20th. He waived all delays and was sentenced as a multiple offender to serve two years at hard labor. His motion for appeal was filed on February 28th.

By his sole assignment of error, the appellant requests a review of the record for errors patent. We have reviewed the record and our review reveals there are no errors patent.

Accordingly, appellant’s conviction and sentence are hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

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

KLEES, Judge.

On December 20, 1985, the appellant was charged with distributing a substance falsely represented to be cocaine. He was arraigned on January 7, 1986, and pled not guilty. On February 13th a six-member jury found him guilty of attempted distribution of a substance falsely represented to be cocaine. His motion for post judgment verdict of acquittal was denied on February 20th. He waived all delays and was sentenced as a multiple offender to serve two years at hard labor. His motion for appeal was filed on February 28th.

By his sole assignment of error, the appellant requests a review of the record for errors patent. We have reviewed the record and our review reveals there are no errors patent.

Accordingly, appellant’s conviction and sentence are hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 So. 2d 188, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-young-lactapp-1986.