correction error in Louisiana

2012State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, 799 .

2012The correction of this error is usually self-activating, see State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, 799 , but because of the accompanying error patent, infra, the district court is instructed make the | .^correction upon resentencing.

2025DIONTE BRACKEN On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Iberville COLE, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons: I entirely support the Court’s Per Curiam opinion and write separately only to commend this correction of the error made by the Court in State v. Nicholson, 315 So. 2d 639 (La. 1975).

2025The district court further noted that Mr. Marenco’s guilty plea had been made pursuant to Alford, as reflected in the minute entry/hard labor commitment and in the opinion of this Court on Mr. Marenco’s direct appeal. 3 We also granted appellate counsel’s request to withdraw pursuant to State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241 (per curiam) and remanded the matter for the correction of an error patent in the minute entry/commitment and the Uniform Commitment Order.

2025Id. 2 Mr. Marenco has not attached any notice of intent to seek supervisory writs and documentation of a return date to his Application, as required by Uniform Rules – Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-3 and 4-5(C)(11).

2009Id. at 444 .

2009Id. at 444 .

1987We note that where the bill of information *1013 was in error, a correction of the error apparently was permitted to be made orally in open court ( State v. Strickland, 398 So.2d 1062 (La.1981)).

1970This appeal requires us to review our then obiter dictum that “the correction where the error is one of substance can be made by any appropriate contradictory proceeding * * 211 So.2d at 683-684 .