Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

744 So. 2d 1274

Docket No. 99-KP-1024.

State v. Fobbs

STATE of Louisiana v. Edward FOBBS.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided September 24, 1999.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1999-09-24

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“114Our observation in State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276, 1280 (La.1993), that “the review of sentencing, including sentencing under R.S. 15:529.1, is a long established function of the judicial branch,” does not, nor did we intend it to, restrict the sentence review principles espoused in that decision solely to the mandatory minimum penalties provided by La. R.S. 15:529.1. See State v. Davis, 94-2332, pp. 11-12 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/15/96) , 666 So.2d 400, 407-08 . As we explained in State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 766 (La.1979), La. Const. Art. 1, § 20 provides “the basis for extending the court’s control over the entire sentencing process.” (emphasis added).”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including State v. Russell, 769 So. 2d 15 - State v. Dupart

“La. R.S. 14:42, Aggravated rape, states in pertinent part: (D)(1). Whoever commits the crime of aggravated rape shall be punished by life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Thomas, 860 So. 2d 66 - State v. Berniard

Relies on State v. Dorthey · State v. Sepulvado · State v. Davis

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-09-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 956 So. 2d 758 - State v. Hill (2007), State v. Henderson (2000)

50 state decisions

280199920002010decided

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*1275 PER CURIAM.[*]

¶2Granted. This case is remanded to the court of appeal for reconsideration on the merits of the trial court's determination that the mandatory minimum term without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence specified by La.R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute is excessive as applied to this particular offender. Our observation in State v. Dorthey,623 So.2d 1276, 1280 (La.1993), that "the review of sentencing, including sentencing under R.S. 15:529.1, is a long established function of the judicial branch," does not, nor did we intend it to, restrict the sentence review principles espoused in that decision solely to the mandatory minimum penalties provided by La.R.S. 15:529.1. See State v. Davis, 94-2332, pp. 11-12 (La.App. 1st Cir. 12/15/95), 666 So.2d 400, 407-08. As we explained in State v. Sepulvado,367 So.2d 762, 766 (La.1979), La. Const. Art. 1, § 20 provides "the basis for extending the court's control over the entire sentencing process." (emphasis added).

¶3TRAYLOR, J. dissents.

NOTES

¶4[*] Lemmon, J., not on panel. See La.S.Ct.Rule IV, Part II, § 3.

/744/so2d/1274 · .json · Public domain