 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Guillory3/11/1998
r a "deal" with the State.
ERRORS PATENT
A review of the record reveals one error patent. La. Code Crim.P. art. 880 provides that when imposing a sentence, the court shall give the Defendant credit toward service of his sentence for time spent in actual custody prior to the imposition of sentence. The record indicates the trial court did not do so. La. Code Crim.P. art. 880 applies to life sentences. State v. Howard, 626 So.2d 459 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1993). Thus, the sentence shall be amended to reflect that Defendant is given credit for time served prior to the execution of the sentence. La. Code Crim.P. art. 882(A). Resentencing is not required; however, this case is remanded in order for the trial court to amend the commitment and minute entry of the sentence to reflect that Defendant is given credit for time served prior to the imposition of his sentence. State v. McCartney, 96-58 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/9/96); 684 So.2d 416, writ denied, 97-0508 (La. 9/5/97); 700 So.2d 503 State v. Moore, 93-1632 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/4/94); 640 So.2d 561, writ denied, 94-1455 (La. 3/30/95); 651 So.2d 858. There are no other errors patent.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
The Defendant has organized his appellate brief into nine arguments; however, his formal list of assignments of error consist of 20 assignments of error with eight subparts and eight pertinent footnotes. They are as follows, with the accompanying footnotes also quoted:
1. The verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
2. The verdict was against the law.
3. Jurors who should have been excused for cause were not excused.
4. Jurors who should not have been excused for cause were excused.
5. The defense was improperly limited in its voir dire.
6. The verdict was unduly influenced by the gruesome and prejudicial photographs introduced at the first phase of the trial.
7. The trial court failed to take appropriate action with respect to the defense objection to the various violations of discovery concerning an alleged racial statement attributed to Mr. Guillory by Michael Narcisse. No disclosure had been made of this statement pursuant to discovery, although it was clear from the prosecution questioning that it had been known to the prosecution. This was particularly important since it was the only evidence that even pretended that Mr. Guillory (as opposed to Tezeno) would have a motive for taking Danny Dougay's life.
8. The trial court should not have prevented the defense from exhibiting evidence to the jury Ä primarily the videotape of the confession Ä that had been properly introduced as evidence, at the time that the defense wanted to exhibit it, and prior to the defense having to cross-examine the relevant witness.
9. The trial court should not have allowed Evelyn Oubre to take the stand to buttress the non-existent testimony of the non-witness, Jeffery Wade Tezeno, in violation of Mr. Guillory's right to confrontation, and his other substantial rights.
10. The trial court should have granted a recess to secure the attendance of witness Marcus Snell at the trial, although he was properly under subpoena. This was critically important, since Mr. Snell would have provided the only source of evidence that (a) Tezeno had been at the crime scene on the Sunday (in contradiction to Tezeno's statement), (b) that Tezeno had threatened to "whup [Danny] up" just before the crime (contradicting Michael Narcisse's novel evidence that a threat had been made by Mr. Guillory).
11. The defense was improperly limited in its cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, including the defense
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|