Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 15:301.1 (2026)

A. When a criminal statute requires that all or a portion of a sentence imposed for a violation of that statute be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, each sentence which is imposed under the provisions of that statute shall be deemed to contain the provisions relating to the service of that sentence without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The failure of a sentencing court to specifically state that all or a portion of the sentence is to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence shall not in any way affect the statutory requirement that all or a portion of the sentence be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§301.1. Sentences without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence; correction

A. When a criminal statute requires that all or a portion of a sentence imposed for a violation of that statute be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, each sentence which is imposed under the provisions of that statute shall be deemed to contain the provisions relating to the service of that sentence without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The failure of a sentencing court to specifically state that all or a portion of the sentence is to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence shall not in any way affect the statutory requirement that all or a portion of the sentence be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

B. If a sentence is inconsistent with statutory provisions, upon the court's own motion or motion of the district attorney, the sentencing court shall amend the sentence to conform to the applicable statutory provisions. The district attorney shall have standing to seek appellate or supervisory relief for the purpose of amending the sentence as provided in this Section.

C. The provisions of this Section shall apply to each provision of law which requires all or a portion of a criminal sentence to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, or of any one of them, any combination thereof, or any substantially similar provision or combination of substantially similar provisions.

D. Any amendment to any criminal sentence as authorized by the provisions of this Section shall be completed within one hundred eighty days of the initial sentencing.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 551 cases (54 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: State v. Williams, 800 So. 2d 790 (La. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Williams, 800 So. 2d 790 (La. 2001). · cites it 58× “R.S. 15:301.1 for the intended purpose of overruling State v.”

State v. Davis, 834 So. 2d 1170 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 22× “R.S. 15:301.1, 2 the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that: “When an illegal sentence is corrected, even though the corrected sentence is more onerous, there is no violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.”

State v. Johnson, 9 So. 3d 1084 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “In this case, the trial judge imposed sentence, on count four, of twenty-five years at hard labor, with fifteen years without benefits.”

State v. Esteen, 821 So. 2d 60 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “R.S. 15:301.1 states: A. When a criminal statute requires that all or a portion of a sentence imposed for a violation of that statute be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, each sentence which is imposed under the provisions of that statute…”

State v. Hall, 843 So. 2d 488 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “R.S. 15:301.1 [2] , which addresses those instances wherein sentences contain statutory restrictions on parole, probation or suspension of sentence.”

State v. Albercht, 809 So. 2d 472 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 18× “No portion of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 15:301.1 conflicts with a constitutional principle to which the legislative enactment must yield.”

State v. Daniel, 811 So. 2d 84 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 19× “No portion of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 15:301.1 conflicts with a constitutional principle to which the legislative enactment must yield.”

State v. Dangerfield, 816 So. 2d 885 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 15:301.1(A) provides in pertinent part that: .”

State v. McKinney, 194 So. 3d 699 (La. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to LSA-R.S. 15:301.1 A, if a criminal statute requires that all or a portion of a sentence imposed for a violation of that statute be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, each sentence which is imposed under the proyisions of that…”

State v. Bagneris, 830 So. 2d 1047 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 10× “As pointed out, no amendment of the defendant's sentence was accomplished through any provision of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 15:301.1: sentencing errors akin to those delineated under Paragraph A are not subject to amendment; and those errors recognized in Paragraph B were not raised…”

State v. Gatti, 914 So. 2d 74 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “R.S. 15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.”

State v. Jordan, 836 So. 2d 609 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “2d 790 , provides that an appellate court may recognize and correct an illegally lenient sentence under the authority of LSA-R.S. 15:301.1(A) and LSA-C.Cr.P. 882 as follows: In the present case, the authority of the appellate court to recognize sentencing error arises in part…”

Show all 551 citing cases →

— La. Rev. Stat. § 15:301.1(A) — 266 cases

State v. Williams, 800 So. 2d 790 (La. 2001). “R.S. 15:301.1 for the intended purpose of overruling State v.”

State v. Dangerfield, 816 So. 2d 885 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 15:301.1(A) provides in pertinent part that: .”

State v. Gatti, 914 So. 2d 74 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.”

State v. Jordan, 836 So. 2d 609 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “2d 790 , provides that an appellate court may recognize and correct an illegally lenient sentence under the authority of LSA-R.S. 15:301.1(A) and LSA-C.Cr.P. 882 as follows: In the present case, the authority of the appellate court to recognize sentencing error arises in part…”

State v. Brown, 861 So. 2d 644 (La. Ct. App. 2003).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 15:301.1(B) — 15 cases

State v. Williams, 800 So. 2d 790 (La. 2001). “R.S. 15:301.1 for the intended purpose of overruling State v.”

State v. Esteen, 821 So. 2d 60 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “R.S. 15:301.1 states: A. When a criminal statute requires that all or a portion of a sentence imposed for a violation of that statute be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, each sentence which is imposed under the provisions of that statute…”

State v. Davis, 834 So. 2d 1170 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “R.S. 15:301.1, 2 the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that: “When an illegal sentence is corrected, even though the corrected sentence is more onerous, there is no violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.”

State v. Bagneris, 830 So. 2d 1047 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “As pointed out, no amendment of the defendant's sentence was accomplished through any provision of La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 15:301.1: sentencing errors akin to those delineated under Paragraph A are not subject to amendment; and those errors recognized in Paragraph B were not raised…”

State v. Comena, 843 So. 2d 464 (La. Ct. App. 2003).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 15:301.1(C) — 9 cases

State v. Mitchell, 877 So. 2d 1151 (La. Ct. App. 2004).

State v. Johnson, 864 So. 2d 645 (La. Ct. App. 2003).

State v. Joseph, 839 So. 2d 103 (La. Ct. App. 2003).

State v. Singleton, 871 So. 2d 596 (La. Ct. App. 2004).

State v. Falkins, 880 So. 2d 903 (La. Ct. App. 2004).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 15:301.1(D) — 5 cases

State v. Williams, 800 So. 2d 790 (La. 2001). “R.S. 15:301.1 for the intended purpose of overruling State v.”

State v. Comena, 843 So. 2d 464 (La. Ct. App. 2003).

State v. Major, 829 So. 2d 625 (La. Ct. App. 2002).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.