Summary
In State v. Stamper, 624 So.2d 1208 (La. 1993), the Supreme Court issued a short per curiam opinion in which it found that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences.
Summary of this case from State v. ThibodeauxOpinion
No. 93-K-1169.
September 24, 1993.
In re Stamper, Oscar J.; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 24658-KA; Parish of Caddo, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. "B", No. 156,367.
The defendant was convicted of three counts of indecent behavior with juveniles, in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:81, and was sentenced to consecutive sentences of four years, five years, and six years. The defendant's actions constituted a common scheme or plan for which imposition of a concurrent sentence is appropriate. La.C.Cr.P. art. 883. The trial court abused its discretion in ordering consecutive sentences and this Court now orders the sentences be served concurrently.
HALL and KIMBALL, JJ., dissent.
CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.