State v. Hutson

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Robinson

    87 So. 3d 881 (La. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 22 times

    Pursuant to Article 881.1, this Court has found that defendants who fail to file the proper motion to reconsider sentence are precluded from raising, on appeal, issues regarding their sentences. See, State v. Holmes, 94–907 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/15/95), 653 So.2d 642;State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5th Cir.1993); State v. Carter, 609 So.2d 261 (La.App. 5th Cir.1992); State v. Collins, 606 So.2d 585 (La.App. 5th Cir.1992); State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La.1993). The record in the instant case reveals that, although defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence based on his original conviction, which was heard and denied prior to defendant's re-sentencing pursuant to LSA–R.S. 15:529.

  2. State v. Lewis

    732 So. 2d 556 (La. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 20 times

    This Court has previously held that pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.1, a defendant who fails to file the proper motion to reconsider sentence in the trial court is precluded from raising sentencing issues on appeal. State v. Williams, 97-970 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/27/98), 708 So.2d 1086; State v. Holmes, 94-907 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/15/95), 653 So.2d 642; State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1993). However, under certain circumstances, we have reviewed sentences for constitutional excessiveness when a defendant has failed to file a motion to reconsider sentence.

  3. State v. Williams

    708 So. 2d 1086 (La. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 18 times

    In following the provisions of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 881.1, this Court has found that defendants who fail to file the proper motion to reconsider sentence are precluded from raising on appeal issues regarding their sentences. State v. Holmes, 94-907 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/15/95), 653 So.2d 642; State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1993); State v. Carter, 609 So.2d 261 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1992). In the instant case the defendant did not file the required motion to reconsider sentence nor did he object to the sentence at the time of sentencing.

  4. State v. Pendelton

    696 So. 2d 144 (La. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 60 times
    In State v. Pendelton, 96-367 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/97); 696 So.2d 144, 154, writ denied, 97-1714 (La. 12/19/97); 706 So.2d 450, the court explained: "Although the Louisiana Supreme Court has accepted both the Blockburger test and the same evidence test, it has principally relied on the "same evidence" test to evaluate double jeopardy claims."

    In following the provisions of Article 881.1, this Court has found that defendants who fail to file the proper motion to reconsider sentence are precluded from raising on appeal issues regarding their sentences. State v. Holmes, 94-907 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/15/95), 653 So.2d 642; State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1993); State v. Carter, 609 So.2d 261 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1992). See also, State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993).

  5. State v. Jackson

    694 So. 2d 440 (La. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 53 times
    In State v. Jackson, 96-661 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/9/97), 694 So.2d 440, 451, writs denied, 97-1050 (La. 10/13/97), 703 So.2d 609, and 97-1255 (La. 10/13/97), 703 So.2d 612, this Court upheld defendant's 198-year enhanced sentence on an armed robbery conviction as a second felony offender.

    In following the provisions of Article 881.1, this Court has found that defendants who fail to file the proper Motion to Reconsider Sentence are precluded from raising on appeal issues regarding their sentences. State v. Holmes, 94-907 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/15/95), 653 So.2d 642; State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1993); State v. Carter, 609 So.2d 261 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1992). See also, State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993), writ denied, 93-2933 (La. 2/11/94), 634 So.2d 373.

  6. State v. Holmes

    653 So. 2d 642 (La. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 40 times
    In Holmes, the only way the State could have convicted Holmes for attempted first degree murder was to rely on the underlying armed robbery, for which he was also convicted.

    We note that under the provisions of La.-C.Cr.P. art. 881.1 (D), defendant has not preserved for review the issue of his excessive sentence. See State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, considering the entire record, including the trial court's articulated reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines, the seriousness of the crime, the surrounding factual circumstances and the defendant's criminal history, the sentence imposed was not an abuse of the discretion afforded the sentencing judge.

  7. State v. Franklin

    648 So. 2d 962 (La. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 12 times
    In State v. Franklin, 94-409 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/94), 648 So.2d 962, writ denied, 95-0143 (La. 5/19/95), 654 So.2d 1354, the Fifth Circuit held that it could not review the defendant's excessive sentence claim where he filed a motion for reconsideration after the original sentence was imposed, but failed to file such a motion after he was resentenced as a multiple offender.

    Because defendant failed to file a motion to reconsider with respect to the sentence imposed on November 24, 1993, he is precluded under article 881.1 from claiming excessiveness on appeal. State v. Hutson, 613 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1993). ADJUDICATION AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER