Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

579 So. 2d 452

Docket No. 90-KH-0932.

State v. Desdunes

STATE of Louisiana v. Gary A. DESDUNES.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided May 24, 1991.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1991-05-24

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[T]he record should reflect consideration by the resentencing judge of the intent of the judge who imposed the original sentence, whether it be the same judge or another judge. If the intent of the judge who imposed the original sentence was that the term of years be served without benefit of parole, resentencing to the same term of years without benefit of parole is appropriate. If the intent of the judge who imposed the original sentence was to allow parole eligibility, then the resentencing judge may impose a sentence of a lesser term of years without benefit of parole to reflect that intent. If the intent of the judge who imposed the original sentence cannot be determined, then the resentencing judge should make an independent determination of an appropriate sentence, not to exceed the term of years originally imposed, to be served without benefit of parole.”

quoted by 10 later decisions, including State v. Dupas, State v. Lewis

Relies on 484 So. 2d 122 - State v. Fraser

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-05-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably State v. Williams (2001), 593 So. 2d 1257 - State v. Husband (1992)

116 state decisions

1120199120002010decided

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 →

¶1PER CURIAM.

¶2Writ Granted. Defendant's motion to correct his "illegally lenient" sentence for armed robbery (forty years at hard labor without mention of parole eligibility or ineligibility) was granted and he was resentenced to the same term of years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

¶3Upon motion of the state or the defendant, the sentencing court should correct an illegally lenient sentence by imposing a legal sentence of a term of years to be served without benefit or parole, probation, or suspension of sentence in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the criminal statute. LSA-R.S. 14:64; LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 882; State v. Fraser,484 So.2d 122 (La.1986).

¶4Since correction of an "illegally lenient" sentence will usually result in a harsher sentence than that originally imposed as regards parole eligibility, upon correction of such a sentence the record should reflect consideration by the resentencing judge of the intent of the judge who imposed the original sentence, whether it be the same judge or another judge. If the intent of the judge who imposed the original sentence was that the term of years be served without benefit of parole, resentencing to the same term of years without benefit of parole is appropriate. If the intent of the judge who imposed the original sentence was to allow parole eligibility, then the resentencing judge may impose a sentence of a lesser term of years without benefit of parole to reflect that intent. If the intent of the judge who imposed the original sentence cannot be determined, then the resentencing judge should make an independent determination of an appropriate sentence, not to exceed the term of years originally imposed, to be served without benefit of parole.

¶5Since the record does not reflect such consideration by the resentencing judge in this case, the corrected sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for correction of the original sentence and resentencing in accordance with the considerations set forth above.

¶6WATSON, J., dissents.

/579/so2d/452 · .json · Public domain