Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

885 So. 2d 533

Docket No. 2004-KP-1092.

State v. Hotard

STATE of Louisiana v. Jason HOTARD.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided October 15, 2004.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 2004-10-15

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2013

10 state decisions

Relies on State Ex Rel. Simmons v. Stalder · St. Amant v. 19TH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT · State v. Tate

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1PER CURIAM.

¶2Writ granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded for resentencing. Because none of the statutes under which relator was convicted contains a provision prohibiting parole for the entire term, the district court pronounced illegal sentences when it ordered all of relator's terms of imprisonment to run in their entirety without benefit *534 of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. See St. Amant v. 19th J.D.C., 94-0567 (La.9/3/96), 678 So.2d 536; see also State v. Tate, 99-1483 (La.11/24/99), 747 So.2d 519. In addition, because the district court has no role in determining eligibility for diminution of sentence pursuant to R.S. 15:571.3 ("good time") for the crime involved, the district court erred in pronouncing relator's habitual offender sentence without benefit of good time. State ex rel. Simmons v. Stalder, 93-1852 (La.1/26/96), 666 So.2d 661. Also, the decision on whether a sentence arising from a probation revocation should run concurrently or consecutively with a sentence arising from a later offense lies with judge revoking probation. La.C.Cr.P. art. 901(C)(2); State ex rel. Holmes v. Maggio, 431 So.2d 1050, 1051 (La.1982). The district court is accordingly ordered to resentence relator to terms authorized under the statutes, and to issue corrected minute entries and commitment documents. In all other respects the application is denied.

/885/so2d/533 · .json · Public domain