Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

798 So. 2d 1178

Docket No. 2001-K-1477.

State v. Serpas

STATE of Louisiana v. Sherry SERPAS.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided October 3, 2001.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 2001-10-03

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 2002

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“It is well settled that the penalty set out in a statute at the time of offense applies. State v. Ragas, 98-0011 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/28/99), 744 So.2d 99 . The fact that a statute is subsequently amended to lessen the possible penalty does not extinguish liability for the offense committed under the former statute. State v. Narcisse, 426 So.2d 118 (La.1983).”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 809 So. 2d 520 - State v. Moore, 818 So. 2d 253 - State v. Houston

Relies on State v. Narcisse · 744 So. 2d 99 - State v. Ragas

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-10-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Harry F. Connick, District Attorney, Paige Cline, Assistant District Attorney, Brandi Hilden, Assistant District Attorney, Aimee Peralta, Law Clerk, New Orleans, LA, Counsel for Relator.

¶2(Court composed of Judge STEVEN R. PLOTKIN, Judge MICHAEL E. KIRBY, and Judge MAX N. TOBIAS, Jr.)

¶3*1179 Judge MAX N. TOBIAS, JR.

¶4The defendant, Sherry Serpas, was charged with violating La. R.S. 40:966(A), possession of heroin, on 31 May 2001, which provided for a sentence of "imprisonment at hard labor for not less than four years nor more than ten years without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence." La. R.S. 40:966(C)(1). After commission of the crime, but before the sentencing, the Legislature amended this statute to delete the language "without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence." See Acts 2001, No. 403. Section 6 of the Act specifically provides that its provisions "shall only have prospective effect." The act became effective on 15 June 2001.

¶5At the defendant's sentencing on 27 July 2001, the trial court sentenced her to ten years at hard labor, but suspended the sentence with three years of active probation. The State filed the instant writ claiming that the sentence issued by the trial court is illegal. We agree.

¶6It is well settled that the penalty set out in a statute at the time of offense applies. State v. Ragas, 98-0011 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/28/99), 744 So.2d 99. The fact that a statute is subsequently amended to lessen the possible penalty does not extinguish liability for the offense committed under the former statute. State v. Narcisse, 426 So.2d 118 (La.1983).

¶7We have reviewed the sentencing transcript and have found no reasons stated by the trial court for a downward departure of the mandatory minimum sentence provided by the statute. Therefore, the sentence is illegal and must be vacated. The matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

¶8WRIT GRANTED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.

/798/so2d/1178 · .json · Public domain