assigned error in Louisiana

2011The arguments raised by defendant in this assigned error are likewise without merit. *507 ERROR PATENT DISCUSSION The record was reviewed for errors patent, according to LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.1975); State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990).

2004Accordingly, this assigned error is without merit. [5] We have also reviewed the record for errors patent, according to LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.1975); and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990).

2011The arguments raised by defendant in this assigned error are likewise without merit. *507 ERROR PATENT DISCUSSION The record was reviewed for errors patent, according to LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.1975); State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990).

2004Accordingly, this assigned error is without merit. [5] We have also reviewed the record for errors patent, according to LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.1975); and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990).

2016Restating an assigned error in brief without including argument or citation of authority does not constitute briefing.” State v. Lauff, 06-717 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/13/07) , 953 So.2d 813, 819 ).

2008In the alternative, the State contends that the assignment is meritless because the jury obviously meant to return a responsive verdict and simply made an inadvertent "slip of the pen." *571 In State v. Lauff, 06-717, p. 9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/13/07), 953 So.2d 813, 819 , this Court noted that "[r]estating an assigned error in brief without argument or citation of authority does not constitute briefing." Our review of defendant's brief reveals that he did not brief this assignment of error.

1995ASSIGNMENT NO. 5 This final assigned error maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support Rogers’ convictions under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

1995ASSIGNMENT NO. 5 This final assigned error maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support Rogers’ convictions under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t

2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t

2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t

2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t

2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t

2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t

2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t

2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t

2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t

2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t

2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t

2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t

2014State v. Lauff, 06-717 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/13/07) , 953 So.2d 813, 819 ; State v. Fernandez, 03-987, p. 9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/30/03), 864 So.2d 764, 770 .

2009U.R.C.A. 2-12.4; State v. Lauff, 06-717, p. 9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/13/07), 953 So.2d 813, 819 ; State v. Fernandez, 03-987, p. 9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/30/03), 864 So.2d 764, 770 .

2004In State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/97) , 703 So.2d 63, 77 , writ denied, 98-264 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 481 , this Court addressed the defendant's assigned error only on the basis of the objection raised at trial, not the new basis urged for the first time on appeal.

2003In State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/97) , 703 So.2d 63, 77 , writ denied, 98-264 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 481 , this Court addressed defendant's assigned error only on the basis of the objection raised at trial, not the new basis urged for the first time on appeal.

2007State v. Inzina, 31,439 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/9/98), 728 So.2d 458, 469 .

2003State v. Inzina, 31,439 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/9/98), 728 So.2d 458, 469 ; State v. Bell, 00-1084 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/01) , 781 So.2d 843, 848 , writ denied, 01-0776 (La.4/26/02), 813 So.2d 1098 .

2015Id. at 165. 1 In State v. Elie, 10-1494 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11) , 74 So.3d 1216 , writ denied, 11-2786 (La.4/13/12), 85 So.3d 1246 , this court remanded the case for resentencing due to the defendant’s absence from sentencing, an assigned error.' On error patent review, this court noted: In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record.

2012This must be corrected upon re-sentencing. \Jd. at 165. 2 Additionally, in State v. Elie, 10-1494 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11) , 74 So.3d 1216 , writ denied, 11-2786 (La.4/13/12), 85 So.3d 1246 , this court remanded the case for resentencing due to the defendant’s absence from sentencing, an assigned error.

2015Id. at 165. 1 In State v. Elie, 10-1494 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11) , 74 So.3d 1216 , writ denied, 11-2786 (La.4/13/12), 85 So.3d 1246 , this court remanded the case for resentencing due to the defendant’s absence from sentencing, an assigned error.' On error patent review, this court noted: In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record.

2012This must be corrected upon re-sentencing. \Jd. at 165. 2 Additionally, in State v. Elie, 10-1494 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11) , 74 So.3d 1216 , writ denied, 11-2786 (La.4/13/12), 85 So.3d 1246 , this court remanded the case for resentencing due to the defendant’s absence from sentencing, an assigned error.

2009Citing Raymo , we reviewed the assigned error although the argument was not raised in the district court because the issue may bear upon the defendant's due process rights. 01-120 at 5, 792 So.2d at 912 . [3] We are also aware of Judge Cannella's dissent in State v. Mayer, 98-1311 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/99) , 743 So.2d 304, 308 , writ granted in part on other grounds, 99-3124 (La.3/31/00), 760 So.2d 309 .

2009We are also aware of Judge Cannella’s dissent in State v. Mayer, 98-1311 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/99) , 743 So.2d 304, 308 , writ granted in part on other grounds, 99-3124 (La.3/31/00), 760 So.2d 309 .

2009Citing Raymo , we reviewed the assigned error although the argument was not raised in the district court because the issue may bear upon the defendant's due process rights. 01-120 at 5, 792 So.2d at 912 . [3] We are also aware of Judge Cannella's dissent in State v. Mayer, 98-1311 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/99) , 743 So.2d 304, 308 , writ granted in part on other grounds, 99-3124 (La.3/31/00), 760 So.2d 309 .

2009Citing Raymo , we reviewed the assigned error although the argument was not raised in the district court because the issue may bear upon the defendant's due process rights. 01-120 at 5, 792 So.2d at 912 . .

2009Citing Raymo , we reviewed the assigned error although the argument was not raised in the district court because the issue may bear upon the defendant's due process rights. 01-120 at 5, 792 So.2d at 912 . [3] We are also aware of Judge Cannella's dissent in State v. Mayer, 98-1311 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/99) , 743 So.2d 304, 308 , writ granted in part on other grounds, 99-3124 (La.3/31/00), 760 So.2d 309 .

2009We are also aware of Judge Cannella’s dissent in State v. Mayer, 98-1311 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/99) , 743 So.2d 304, 308 , writ granted in part on other grounds, 99-3124 (La.3/31/00), 760 So.2d 309 .

2004In State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/97) , 703 So.2d 63, 77 , writ denied, 98-264 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 481 , this Court addressed the defendant's assigned error only on the basis of the objection raised at trial, not the new basis urged for the first time on appeal.

2003In State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/97) , 703 So.2d 63, 77 , writ denied, 98-264 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 481 , this Court addressed defendant's assigned error only on the basis of the objection raised at trial, not the new basis urged for the first time on appeal.

1995Notwithstanding the holdings in [ State v. ] Belgard [ 410 So.2d 720 ] [(La.1982)], [ State v. ] Thomas [ 427 So.2d 428 ] [(La.1982)], and [ State v. ] Latiolais [ 453 So.2d 1266 ] [(La.App. 3d Cir.1984)], we conclude instructional errors involving the very definition of the crime charged so threatens a defendant's basic due process rights that they compel reversal of Pyke's conviction and sentence.

1994Without mentioning the Williamson exception, the Supreme Court refused to consider the assigned error stating in a single sentence "... defendant did not object to this instruction at trial, and it is not reviewable on appeal." Again refusing to apply the Williamson exception in State v. Thomas, 427 So.2d 428 (La.1982), the Supreme Court said: "We express no opinion on whether this court will again grant review under the unique facts of Williamson , but leave that as an open question.

2022Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 636 , 92 S.Ct. 1221 , 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 , 4 S.Ct. 111, 122 , 28 L.Ed.2d 232 (1884)); State v. Young, 249 La. 609, 612 , 188 So.2d 421, 422 (1966) (“[I]t is not a violation of the Federal Constitution for a State to provide for prosecution of an infamous crime by information when the constitution of the State authorizes that procedure.) Based on the foregoing, this assigned error is without merit.

2022Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 636 , 92 S.Ct. 1221 , 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 , 4 S.Ct. 111, 122 , 28 L.Ed.2d 232 (1884)); State v. Young, 249 La. 609, 612 , 188 So.2d 421, 422 (1966) (“[I]t is not a violation of the Federal Constitution for a State to provide for prosecution of an infamous crime by information when the constitution of the State authorizes that procedure.) Based on the foregoing, this assigned error is without merit.

2022Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 636 , 92 S.Ct. 1221 , 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 , 4 S.Ct. 111, 122 , 28 L.Ed.2d 232 (1884)); State v. Young, 249 La. 609, 612 , 188 So.2d 421, 422 (1966) (“[I]t is not a violation of the Federal Constitution for a State to provide for prosecution of an infamous crime by information when the constitution of the State authorizes that procedure.) Based on the foregoing, this assigned error is without merit.

2022Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 636 , 92 S.Ct. 1221 , 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 , 4 S.Ct. 111, 122 , 28 L.Ed.2d 232 (1884)); State v. Young, 249 La. 609, 612 , 188 So.2d 421, 422 (1966) (“[I]t is not a violation of the Federal Constitution for a State to provide for prosecution of an infamous crime by information when the constitution of the State authorizes that procedure.) Based on the foregoing, this assigned error is without merit.

2020App. 2 Cir. 1986), and case analysis therein.6 6 On remand we highly recommend State v. Pashandi for providing “the best formula for evaluating whether a probationary condition is reasonably related to rehabilitation.” Id. at 684 . 24 ERRORS PATENT The discussion of the alleged illegal conditions of probation and the illegal order of restitution to the insurer are addressed under the assigned error.

2020In Hunter, addressed a defendant’s assigned error of insufficient evidence before it addressed the assignment of error regarding the constitutionality of the non-unanimous verdict explaining: … As the Louisiana Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he reason for reviewing sufficiency first is that the accused may be entitled to an acquittal under Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S.Ct. 970 , 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981).

2020In Hunter, addressed a defendant’s assigned error of insufficient evidence before it addressed the assignment of error regarding the constitutionality of the non-unanimous verdict explaining: … As the Louisiana Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he reason for reviewing sufficiency first is that the accused may be entitled to an acquittal under Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S.Ct. 970 , 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981).

2018In State v. Cyriak , 96-661 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96) , 684 So.2d 42 , 46, the appellate court, as an assigned error, found the trial court's failure to consider the merits of the defendant's post-conviction motion seeking appointment of sanity commission, raised at the habitual offender proceeding, required the issue be remanded for a hearing.