From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Williams

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Jan 19, 1976
325 So. 2d 582 (La. 1976)

Opinion

No. 56820.

January 19, 1976.

APPEAL FROM 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE RICHARD B. WILLIAMS, J.

John B. Whitaker, Maker Whitaker, Natchitoches, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald C. Martin, Dist. Atty., John S. Stephens, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.


Roy Milton Williams was charged by indictment with second degree murder in violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. After trial by jury, he was found guilty of manslaughter. Thereafter, he was sentenced to serve twelve years at hard labor. On appeal, he relies upon two alleged errors at trial for reversal of his conviction and sentence.

In his brief to this court, defendant contends that the trial judge erred in sustaining the state's objection to his reading and citing excerpts from cases allegedly similar to the one at bar. He also alleges that the trial judge erred in permitting the state, over his objection, to question him on the witness stand as to whether he had any prior convictions.

We are, however, unable to review his arguments. Article 920 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth the scope of appellate review:

The following matters and no others shall be considered on appeal:

(1) An error designated in the assignment of errors; and

(2) An error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence.

La. Code Crim.P. art. 920 (1966), as amended, La. Acts 1974, No. 207, § 1, effective July 31, 1974. The Official Revision Comment to this article states:

The 1974 amendment to clause (1) basically conforms the article to the assignment of errors procedure. For errors to be included in the assignment of errors reviewable on appeal, the requisite procedures must have been followed. See Arts. 841, 842, 844, 845, 851, 859.

Defendant has not complied with the assignment of errors procedure. Specifically, he has failed to follow the provisions of article 844 requiring that the written designation of those errors that are to be urged on appeal be filed with the trial court. Consequently, the alleged trial errors of which defendant complains in his brief are not before us for review. State v. Williams, 319 So.2d 405 (La. 1975); State v. Donnell, 318 So.2d 3 (La. 1975); State v. Shillow, 310 So.2d 103 (La. 1975).

We have reviewed the record for errors discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspections of the evidence and have found none. La. Code Crim.P. art. 920(2) (1966), as amended, La. Acts 1974, No. 207, § 1, effective July 31, 1974.

DECREE

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

DIXON, dissents.


Summaries of

State v. Williams

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Jan 19, 1976
325 So. 2d 582 (La. 1976)
Case details for

State v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ROY MILTON WILLIAMS

Court:Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date published: Jan 19, 1976

Citations

325 So. 2d 582 (La. 1976)

Citing Cases

State v. Wientjes

These arguments, unaccompanied by proper assignments of error or errors discoverable by mere inspection of…

State v. Provost

Hence, if the motion to strike is treated as an objection to the testimony, it came too late and cannot be…