From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Bamburg

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit
Nov 2, 2000
772 So. 2d 356 (La. Ct. App. 2000)

Summary

In State v. Bamburg, 00-675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence.

Summary of this case from State v. Bench

Opinion

No. 00-675

November 2, 2000.

APPEAL FROM THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF SABINE, NO. 50,733, HONORABLE ROBERT E. BURGESS, DISTRICT JUDGE

Don M. Burkett, District Attorney, Post Office Box 1557, Many, LA 71449, Telephone: (318) 256-6246, Counsel for the State.

Lawrence C. Billeaud, Louisiana Appellate Project, Post Office Box 53253, Lafayette, LA 70505-3253, Telephone: (337) 991-9757, Counsel for Defendant.

(Court composed of Billie Colombaro Woodard, Marc T. Amy, and Michael G. Sullivan, Judges.)


On September 28, 1999, William Bamburg was convicted by a jury of attempted armed robbery in violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:64. On March 16, 2000, he was sentenced to serve five years at hard labor with credit for time served. He now seeks review of his sentence.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Defendant asserts that the trial judge inadvertently sentenced him to serve double the statutory minimum sentence when he actually intended to impose the minimum statutory sentence. Defendant failed to object orally at sentencing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence; therefore, his claim for excessiveness of sentence is barred. See La. Code Crim.P. art. 881.1. See also, State v. Davis, 97-331 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/29/97); 702 So.2d 1014; writ denied, 97-2990 (La. 11/6/98); 726 So.2d 919 (citing State v. Reeves, 619 So.2d 543 (La. 1993)). Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.

We note that the trial court did not impose Defendant's sentence without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence as mandated by La.R.S. 14:64. Previously, this would have been treated as an illegally lenient sentence. However, pursuant to the provisions of La.R.S. 15:301.1, which became effective August 15, 1999, the sentence imposed by the trial court is deemed to contain those provisions.

Accordingly, Defendant's sentence of five years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence and with credit for time served is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

State v. Bamburg

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit
Nov 2, 2000
772 So. 2d 356 (La. Ct. App. 2000)

In State v. Bamburg, 00-675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence.

Summary of this case from State v. Bench

In State v. Bamburg, 00-675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence.

Summary of this case from State v. Price

In State v. Bamburg, 00-675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence.

Summary of this case from State v. Lewis

In State v. Bamburg, 00-675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence.

Summary of this case from State v. Arceneaux

In State v. Bamburg, 00-675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence; thus, this court found his claim of excessiveness of sentence was barred.

Summary of this case from State v. Bartie

In State v. Bamburg, 00–675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence; thus, this court found his excessive sentence claim was barred.

Summary of this case from State v. Duplantis

In State v. Bamburg, 00-675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence; thus, this court found his excessive sentence claim was barred.

Summary of this case from State v. Duplantis

In State v. Bamburg, 00–675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence.

Summary of this case from State v. Greene

In State v. Bamburg, 00–675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence.

Summary of this case from State v. Bowles

In State v. Bamburg, 00–675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence; thus, this court found his claim of excessiveness of sentence was barred.

Summary of this case from State v. Arceneaux

In State v. Bamburg, 00–675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence.

Summary of this case from State v. Mouton

In State v. Bamburg, 00-675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence.

Summary of this case from State v. Gresham

In State v. Bamburg, 00-675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 356, the defendant failed to object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing and did not timely file a motion to reconsider sentence.

Summary of this case from State v. Quinn
Case details for

State v. Bamburg

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF LOUISIANA v. WILLIAM R. BAMBURG

Court:Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit

Date published: Nov 2, 2000

Citations

772 So. 2d 356 (La. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

State v. Wright

10Thus, under some jurisprudence, the defendant is precluded from appealing his sentence. See State v.…

State v. Watson

Failure to make or file a motion to reconsider sentence or to include a specific ground upon which a motion…