Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

411 So. 2d 448

Docket No. 81-KA-1767.

State v. Conley

STATE of Louisiana v. Sterling A. CONLEY.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided March 10, 1982.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1982-03-10

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Whoever commits the crime of simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than one year, without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence, nor more than twelve years.”

quoted by 8 later decisions, including State v. King, State v. Jones

“[a]t least two years of the sentence imposed shall be without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including State v. Smith, 855 So. 2d 408 - State v. Jones

Relies on 338 So. 2d 584 - State v. Crosby · 406 So. 2d 213 - State v. Boowell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-03-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2015

22 state decisions

1501982199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*449 William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Richard Petre, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶2Roy Raspanti, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Sterling Conley was charged by bill of information with simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling, in violation of La.R.S. 14:62.2. Following the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized incident to his arrest, defendant entered a plea of guilty, reserving his right to appellate review of the trial court's ruling. State v. Crosby,338 So.2d 584 (La.1976). The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced defendant to three years at hard labor, without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence to this Court, urging two assignments of error.

¶5We have reviewed defendant's challenge to the trial court's denial of his suppression motion and find it to lack merit. For this reason, the defendant's conviction is affirmed. We agree, however, with his contention that the trial court erred in denying the accused eligibility for probation, parole, or suspension of sentence for the entire term of his sentence. In pertinent part, La.R.S. 14:62.2 provides:

Whoever commits the crime of simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than one year, without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, nor more than twelve years.

¶6Construing this provision in State v. Boowell,406 So.2d 213 (La.1981), this Court accepted the defendant's contention that the ineligibility provision should attach only to the statute's minimum one-year term. Thus, the sentence imposed herein was clearly illegal and must be vacated.

¶7CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMANDED.

/411/so2d/448 · .json · Public domain