State v. Urena

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided April 6, 2016

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 2016-04-06

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 2019

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“If the defendant is convicted of two or more offenses based on the same act or transaction, or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively. Other sentences of imprisonment shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that some or all of them be served concurrently. In the case of the concurrent sentence, the judge shall specify, and the court minutes shall reflect, the date from which the sentences are to run concurrently.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Young

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2016-04-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

AMY, J.,

¶1concurring.

¶2I agree with the majority that an affirmation is appropriate in this case. However, I further note that La.Code Crim.P. art. 883 orders that the terms of imprisonment for convictions for “two or more offenses based on the same act or transaction ... shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively.” (Emphasis added.) In this case, the defendant was convicted of separate offenses that occurred over a multi-year span. Notwithstanding the trial court’s articula*825tion of the circumstances of the offenses, I find that application of Article 883, alone, supports the trial court’s order that the sentences be served consecutively. Simply, the offenses were not “based on the same act or transaction.” Id.