Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

700 So. 2d 1322

Docket No. 97-KA-0319.

State v. Martin

STATE of Louisiana v. Leo MARTIN.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided October 1, 1997.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1997-10-01

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A. (1) In felony cases, within thirty days following the imposition of sentence or within such longer period as the trial court may set at sentence, the state or the defendant may make or file a motion to reconsider sentence. [[Image here]] B. The motion shall be oral at the time of sentence or shall be in writing thereafter and shall set forth the specific grounds on which the motion is based. [[Image here]] E. Failure to make or file a motion to reconsider sentence or to include a specific ground upon which a motion to reconsider sentence may be based, including a claim of excessiveness, shall preclude the state or the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or from urging any ground not raised in the motion on appeal or review.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 52 So. 3d 951 - State v. Summers, 773 So. 2d 234 - State v. Jones

Relies on State v. Crawford · 673 So. 2d 262 - State v. Green

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-10-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2010

8 state decisions

40199720002010decided

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*1323 Harry F. Connick, District Attorney, Theresa A. Tamburo, Assistant District Attorney, New Orleans, for Plaintiff/Appellee.

¶2Pamela S. Moran, Louisiana Appellate Project, New Orleans, for Defendant/Appellant.

¶3Before ARMSTRONG, LANDRIEU and MURRAY, JJ.

¶4ARMSTRONG, Judge.

¶5Defendant, Leo Martin, was charged by bill of information with possession of cocaine, a violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C). At his arraignment, defendant pleaded not guilty. Following trial, a six-member jury found the defendant guilty as charged. The State subsequently filed a bill of information charging defendant with being a habitual offender, to which he pleaded guilty after being advised of his rights. The trial court found defendant to be a second felony offender and sentenced him under La. R.S. 15:529.1 to serve forty months at hard labor in the Department of Corrections with credit for any time served in connection with this case. Defendant now appeals, alleging one assignment of error: that his sentence was constitutionally excessive.

¶6The record does not contain an objection to the sentence, nor does it contain a motion to reconsider the sentence pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(D) which provides:

Failure to make or file a motion to reconsider sentence or to include a specific ground upon which a motion to reconsider sentence may be based, including a claim of excessiveness, shall preclude the state or the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or from urging any ground not raised in the motion on appeal or review.

¶7The failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence precludes defendant from raising a claim about the sentence on appeal. State v. Green, 93-1432 (La.App. 4th Cir. 4/17/96), 673 So.2d 262, writs denied, 96-1131, 96-1248 (La.10/496), 679 So.2d 1379, 1380.

¶8For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.

¶9AFFIRMED.

/700/so2d/1322 · .json · Public domain