Summary
In State v. Prince, 97-0727 (La. 9/26/07); 701 So.2d 965, the supreme court simply amended the sentence imposed by the trial court to delete the requirement of restitution where restitution was not authorized by statute.
Summary of this case from State v. BuckleyOpinion
No. 97-K-0727
September 26, 1997
IN RE: Prince, Thomas E.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Claiborne 2nd Judicial District Court Div. "A" Number 17,520; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Number 29208-KA.
Granted in part; denied in part. The sentence imposed by the trial court is amended to delete the requirement of restitution. The relevant statutes, La.R.S. 14:27; La.R.S. 14:31; La.R.S. La. 14:44.1, do not authorize a district court to impose restitution in a felony case as part of an executory sentence of imprisonment. State v. Lee, 94-0814 (La. 6/17/94), 641 So.2d 206; State v. Patterson, 442 So.2d 442 (La. 1983). Compare La.R.S. 14:67.3 (f) (authorizing restitution as part of sentence for theft); La.C.Cr.P. art. 895.1 (authorizing restitution as a condition of probation); La.R.S. 15:574.4 (J) (authorizing restitution as a condition of parole). In all other respects the application is denied.
CDT
PFC
WFM
HTL
CDK
JPV
JTK
JOHNSON, J. not on panel.