State v. Zeno

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Zeno

380 So. 2d 39, 1980 La. LEXIS 8359

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 28, 1980

DocketNo. 65383

StatusPublished

This text of 380 So. 2d 39 (State v. Zeno) 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. Zeno, 380 So. 2d 39, 1980 La. LEXIS 8359 (La. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

After considering the arguments of counsel and examining the record we find the defendant’s assignments of error to be without merit for reasons assigned in our unpublished appendix on file under this docket number.

In our review, however, we have discovered an error patent on the face of the record. The bill of information, which accuses defendant of having “robbed Joseph Menard and Scurdy Menard, in violation of the provisions of R.S. 14:64,” charges him with a single offense. State v. Foe, 337 So.2d 491 (La.1976); State v. Ware, 345 So.2d 33 (La.1977). Nevertheless, the jury was allowed to return two separate verdicts of guilty and the trial judge sentenced defendant to two sentences of fifteen years at hard labor. Accordingly, the sentences must be set aside and the trial court must recast its judgment to impose one conviction and one sentence as a result of this prosecution.

A single conviction of armed robbery is affirmed. Otherwise the sentences and judgments of conviction herein are set aside and the case is remanded for resentencing and recasting of the judgment.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM.

After considering the arguments of counsel and examining the record we find the defendant’s assignments of error to be without merit for reasons assigned in our unpublished appendix on file under this docket number.

In our review, however, we have discovered an error patent on the face of the record. The bill of information, which accuses defendant of having “robbed Joseph Menard and Scurdy Menard, in violation of the provisions of R.S. 14:64,” charges him with a single offense. State v. Foe, 337 So.2d 491 (La.1976); State v. Ware, 345 So.2d 33 (La.1977). Nevertheless, the jury was allowed to return two separate verdicts of guilty and the trial judge sentenced defendant to two sentences of fifteen years at hard labor. Accordingly, the sentences must be set aside and the trial court must recast its judgment to impose one conviction and one sentence as a result of this prosecution.

A single conviction of armed robbery is affirmed. Otherwise the sentences and judgments of conviction herein are set aside and the case is remanded for resentencing and recasting of the judgment.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 So. 2d 39, 1980 La. LEXIS 8359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-zeno-la-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack