You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State v. Harris

Citations: 661 So. 2d 142; 1995 WL 590195Docket: Nos. 95-K-1106, 95-KO-1272

Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana; September 29, 1995; Louisiana; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The court has partially granted and partially denied the defendant's application regarding sentencing. The sentences for offenses committed on May 22 and May 23, 1991, will now run concurrently with each other but will run consecutively to the sentence for the offense committed on September 3, 1991. The amended convictions and sentences are affirmed. All other aspects of the applications have been denied. Justice Kimball dissents from this order, advocating for a remand to the trial court for resentencing in alignment with section 894.1. Chief Justice Calogero did not participate in the panel's decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Amended Convictions and Sentences

Application: The court affirmed the amended convictions and sentences, indicating no further changes to the decisions made regarding the defendant's sentencing.

Reasoning: The amended convictions and sentences are affirmed.

Concurrent and Consecutive Sentencing

Application: The court decided that sentences for the offenses committed on specific dates should run concurrently with each other but consecutively to another offense.

Reasoning: The sentences for offenses committed on May 22 and May 23, 1991, will now run concurrently with each other but will run consecutively to the sentence for the offense committed on September 3, 1991.

Dissent on Sentencing Procedure

Application: Justice Kimball disagreed with the majority decision and proposed a remand for resentencing according to specific legal guidelines.

Reasoning: Justice Kimball dissents from this order, advocating for a remand to the trial court for resentencing in alignment with section 894.1.

Non-Participation of Chief Justice

Application: Chief Justice Calogero did not participate in the decision-making process of the panel, which might affect the panel's unanimity or diversity of opinion.

Reasoning: Chief Justice Calogero did not participate in the panel's decision.