Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JOHN DOMINO.

PER CURIAM.

On September 17, 1975, defendant John Domino was indicted for the crime of distribution of heroin, a violation of La.R.S. 40:966. On November 22, 1976, defendant was tried before a twelve person jury which found him guilty as charged. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced him to serve life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. On appeal defendant urges four (4) assignments of error.

We have reviewed defendant's assignments of error and find them to be without merit. However, we note ex proprio motu, that the sentence imposed by the trial court is improper. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 920(2); State v. Jones, 341 So.2d 3 (La. 1976). At the time the subject offense was committed, La.R.S. 40:966(B)(1) provided that a person convicted of distribution of heroin should be "sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor and, in addition, [could] be required to pay a fine of not more than Fifteen Thousand Dollars." La.R.S. 40:966(B)(1), as amended by acts 1973, No. 207, § 3. Consequently, the trial court erred in qualifying defendant's sentence of life imprisonment by the language "without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence."

Accordingly, defendant's conviction is affirmed, but the case is remanded for resentencing in accordance with law.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. DOMINO
(Jun 30, 1978)