State v. Walder case brief
952 So.2d 21
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
952 So.2d 21
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant
challenged a decision from the 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish
of St. Tammany, Louisiana, which convicted her of 123 counts of
aggravated cruelty to animals after a guilty plea was entered.
Specifically, she challenged the restitution ordered.
FACTS: Defendant had a large amount of animals at her residence, some of which were in extremely poor health. She was charged with animal cruelty, in violation of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:102.1. After pleading guilty, the trial court entered a restitution order. Defendant's motion to reconsider was denied, and this appeal followed. On review, the appellate court determined that there was a patent error under La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 920(2). Although the minute entry showed that the trial court imposed concurrent sentences on each count, the sentencing transcript showed otherwise. A sentence had to been imposed for each conviction, and a case without a valid sentence was not properly before the appellate court under La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 912(C)(1) and La. Const. art. V, § 10(A). Next, although ordering restitution for the costs of boarding and veterinary care was allowed under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:102.2(D), defendant should not have had to pay for such costs after she transferred ownership of the animals to a parish. Finally, she was not allowed an offset for the price received from the sale of her horses since she did not own them at the time of sale.
CONCLUSION: The case was remanded for resentencing. The trial court was instructed to conduct a reopened restitution hearing to determine the amount of expenses incurred between the date of the seizure of the animals and the date they were transferred to the parish.
FACTS: Defendant had a large amount of animals at her residence, some of which were in extremely poor health. She was charged with animal cruelty, in violation of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:102.1. After pleading guilty, the trial court entered a restitution order. Defendant's motion to reconsider was denied, and this appeal followed. On review, the appellate court determined that there was a patent error under La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 920(2). Although the minute entry showed that the trial court imposed concurrent sentences on each count, the sentencing transcript showed otherwise. A sentence had to been imposed for each conviction, and a case without a valid sentence was not properly before the appellate court under La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 912(C)(1) and La. Const. art. V, § 10(A). Next, although ordering restitution for the costs of boarding and veterinary care was allowed under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:102.2(D), defendant should not have had to pay for such costs after she transferred ownership of the animals to a parish. Finally, she was not allowed an offset for the price received from the sale of her horses since she did not own them at the time of sale.
CONCLUSION: The case was remanded for resentencing. The trial court was instructed to conduct a reopened restitution hearing to determine the amount of expenses incurred between the date of the seizure of the animals and the date they were transferred to the parish.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment