State v. Carter

State v. Carter, 609 So. 2d 261 (La. Ct. App. 1992)

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided: October 14, 1992
Docket: No. 92-KA-468
Judges: Gaudin, Dufresne, and Wicker
Citations: 609 So. 2d 2611992 WL 303279

Cited by 11

Opinion

609 So.2d 261 (1992)

STATE of Louisiana

Angela CARTER.

No. 92-KA-468.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

October 14, 1992.

Donald D. Candell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Gonzales, for plaintiff/appellee.

Michael J. Poirrier, Pierre Part, for defendant/appellant.

Before GAUDIN, DUFRESNE, and WICKER, JJ.

WICKER, Judge.

Angela Carter was charged by Bill of Information with violation of La.R.S. 14:67, theft valued over $500.00 from Calco Travel Agency. She entered a guilty plea as charged. The sole issue on appeal is whether the sentence imposed of six years to the Department of Corrections, with credit for time served, is excessive. We affirm.

The defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence considering the crime and the defendant's past criminal conduct. However, since she failed to file a motion to reconsider sentence she is precluded from raising these issues on appeal. La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(D). The defendant was sentenced February 11, 1992 which was after January 30, 1992, the date article 881.1(D) became effective. That article provides:

Art. 881.1. Motion to reconsider sentence

A. (1) Within thirty days following the imposition of sentence or within such longer period as the trial court may set at sentence, the state or the defendant may make or file a motion to reconsider sentence.

(2) The motion shall be oral at the time of sentencing or in writing thereafter and shall set forth the specific grounds on which the motion is based.

B. If a motion is made or filed under Paragraph A of this Article, the trial court may resentence the defendant despite the pendency of an appeal or the commencement of execution of the sentence.

C. The trial court may deny a motion to reconsider sentence without a contradictory hearing.

D. Failure to make or file a motion to reconsider sentence or to include a specific ground upon which a motion to reconsider sentence may be based, including a claim of excessiveness, shall preclude the state or the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or from urging any ground not raised in the motion on appeal or review.

Additionally, we find no errors patent. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts11

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Bibb626 So. 2d 913 (La. Ct. App. 1993)
State v. Jackson694 So. 2d 440 (La. Ct. App. 1997)
State v. Pendelton696 So. 2d 144 (La. Ct. App. 1997)
State v. Wiley614 So. 2d 862 (La. Ct. App. 1993)
State v. Williams708 So. 2d 1086 (La. Ct. App. 1998)
State v. Robinson87 So. 3d 881 (La. Ct. App. 2011)

Most recent

State v. Robinson87 So. 3d 881 (La. Ct. App. 2011)
State v. Williams708 So. 2d 1086 (La. Ct. App. 1998)
State v. Pendelton696 So. 2d 144 (La. Ct. App. 1997)
State v. Jackson694 So. 2d 440 (La. Ct. App. 1997)
State v. Bibb626 So. 2d 913 (La. Ct. App. 1993)
State v. Cole626 So. 2d 769 (La. Ct. App. 1993)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Moisant v. Dominick, 609 So. 2d 261 (La. Ct. App. 1992)	1

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list