State v. Reed

8 Citing cases

  1. State v. Runnels

    182 So. 3d 1245 (La. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 3 times
    In State v. Runnels, 15-172 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/23/15), 182 So.3d 1245, 1251-52, the defendant argued on appeal that his statements should have been suppressed after entering an unqualified guilty plea. Upon review of the record, this Court found that the signed waiver of rights form and the colloquy with the trial court were void of any suggestion that the guilty plea was made subject to the reservation of appellate review of the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress his statements.

    A defendant cannot appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement which was set forth in the record at the time of the plea. La. C.Cr. P. art. 881.2A(2); State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.App. 5 Cir. 02/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, 78, writ denied, 11–509 (La.09/30/11), 71 So.3d 280; State v. Cross, 06–866 (La.App. 5 Cir. 04/11/07), 958 So.2d 28, 30. Therefore, a defendant is precluded from raising a claim of excessiveness on appeal when the [ 9] imposed sentence is the product of a plea agreement.

  2. State v. Reed

    71 So. 3d 280 (La. 2011)

    STATE of Louisianav.Crystal REED.Prior report: La.App., 61 So.3d 74. In re Reed, Crystal;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 06–3226; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10–KA–527.

  3. State v. Robinson

    186 So. 3d 1269 (La. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 9 times

    forth in the record at the time of the plea.” See also State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, 78, writ denied, 11–509 (La.9/30/11), 71 So.3d 280; State v. Cross, 06–866 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/11/07), 958 So.2d 28, 30. This Court also has applied La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.2(A)(2) to cases in which a defendant admits to the allegations in a habitual offender bill of information as part of a sentencing agreement. State v. Bolton, 02–1034 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/03), 844 So.2d 135, 142, writ denied, 03–1159 (La.11/14/03), 858 So.2d 417.

  4. State v. Ellison

    121 So. 3d 139 (La. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    However, a defendant may be allowed appellate review if, at the time he enters a guilty plea, he expressly reserves his right to appeal a specific adverse ruling in the case. State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, 77,writ denied,11–509 (La.9/30/11), 71 So.3d 280. In the instant case, the record does not reflect that defendant tendered his guilty pleas pursuant to Crosby, or that he reserved his right to appeal any pre-trial rulings under Crosby when he pled guilty. Accordingly, defendant waived his right to appellate review of the denial of his motion to quash.

  5. State v. Barnes

    92 So. 3d 9 (La. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    Nevertheless, when a criminal statute requires that all or portion of a sentence be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, La. R.S. 15:301.1(A) self-activates the correction and eliminates the need to remand for a ministerial correction. State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.2/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, 78. Thus, no corrective action is necessary. .La. R.S. 15:301.1(A) provides, in pertinent part: “The failure of a sentencing court to specifically state that all or a portion of the sentence is to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence shall not in any way affect the statutory requirement that all or a portion of the sentence be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.”

  6. State v. Jones

    81 So. 3d 835 (La. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 5 times

    FN16. State v. Wingerter, 05–697, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/14/06), 926 So.2d 662. FN17. State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, writ denied, 11–0509 (La.9/30/11), 71 So.3d 280. FN18. State v. Allen, 03–2156 (La.App.

  7. State v. Turner

    75 So. 3d 491 (La. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 13 times

    4. State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, 77. 5.

  8. State v. Miller

    74 So. 3d 739 (La. Ct. App. 2011)

    A defendant may be allowed appellate review, if, at the time he enters a guilty plea, he expressly reserves his right to appeal a specific adverse ruling in the case. State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, 77. A defendant who fails to specify which pre-trial ruling he wishes to reserve for appeal as part of a guilty plea entered under Crosby is not precluded from review altogether, but his appellate review may be limited in scope. State v. Richardson, 09–714 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/9/10), 33 So.3d 903, 906–07, writ denied, 10–0526 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1109.