Narrative Opinion Summary
John L. Williams, Sr. pled guilty to negligent homicide under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:32 and was sentenced to five years of hard labor. He appealed the sentence, claiming it was excessive. Although he objected during sentencing, he did not file any assignments of error, restricting the appellate review to errors apparent on the record. Citing relevant Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure articles and case law, the court found no such errors and affirmed the sentence. Justice Marvin dissented, providing written reasons for his disagreement.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review Limited to Errors Apparent on the Recordsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Williams' failure to file assignments of error limited the appellate court's review to apparent errors, as per the procedural rules governing appeals.
Reasoning: Although he objected during sentencing, he did not file any assignments of error, restricting the appellate review to errors apparent on the record.
Dissenting Opinionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Justice Marvin expressed disagreement with the majority's decision to affirm the sentence and provided a written dissent.
Reasoning: Justice Marvin dissented, providing written reasons for his disagreement.
Guilty Plea Under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:32subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant, John L. Williams, Sr., entered a guilty plea for the charge of negligent homicide, which impacts the scope of issues that can be raised on appeal.
Reasoning: John L. Williams, Sr. pled guilty to negligent homicide under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:32 and was sentenced to five years of hard labor.
Sentence Affirmation Due to Lack of Apparent Errorssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the sentence after finding no errors on the record, following an examination of relevant procedural articles and case precedents.
Reasoning: Citing relevant Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure articles and case law, the court found no such errors and affirmed the sentence.