Cargando…
Fuente: Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab (static.case.law); Louisiana Court of Appeal; 55 So. 3d 995. Datos: https://static.case.law/so3d/55/cases/0995-01.json. Opinión judicial de EE.UU. sin restricciones conocidas de uso: CAP levantó las restricciones el 2024-03-01 (prensa); el espejo HF free-law declara cc0-1.0; NO c… Abrir la fuente
Cargando el texto completo…
State v. Francisco, 55 So. 3d 995 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2011) First, the trial 1 gncourt found aggravating that Defendant’s conduct during the commission of the offense manifested cruelty to the victim. He knew or should have known that the victim, a woman, was vulnerable or incapable of resistance and that bodily harm and violence were involved in the commission of the offense. Lastly, the trial court stated that it could not find any mitigating circumstances that applied to Defendant’s conduct in the offense. In support of his excessive sentence claim, Defendant refers to State v. Tisby, 33,591 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/21/00), 764 So.2d 209, writ denied, 00-2236 (La.6/1/01), 793 So.2d 181, wherein the defendant was convicted of second degree battery and sentenced to two and one-half years at hard labor. The defendant and his girlfriend were guests at a barbeque when the defendant forcibly removed his girlfriend from the gathering and took her home. After-wards, the victim went to the defendant’s house to check on the defendant’s girlfriend. When the victim tried to enter the house, the defendant swung a sling blade at him, cutting him across the face. At sentencing, the trial court noted the defendant’s criminal history, which included a conviction for simple robbery, reduced by plea agreement from a first degree robbery charge, and convictions for driving while intoxicated. Also, the forty-year-old defendant was the father of three children and a high school graduate who…
Fuente: Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab (static.case.law); Louisiana Court of Appeal; 55 So. 3d 995. Datos: https://static.case.law/so3d/55/cases/0995-01.json. Opinión judicial de EE.UU. sin restricciones conocidas de uso: CAP levantó las restricciones el 2024-03-01 (prensa); el espejo HF free-law declara cc0-1.0; NO c… Abrir la fuente
Cargando el texto completo…
State v. Francisco, 55 So. 3d 995 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2011) First, the trial 1 gncourt found aggravating that Defendant’s conduct during the commission of the offense manifested cruelty to the victim. He knew or should have known that the victim, a woman, was vulnerable or incapable of resistance and that bodily harm and violence were involved in the commission of the offense. Lastly, the trial court stated that it could not find any mitigating circumstances that applied to Defendant’s conduct in the offense. In support of his excessive sentence claim, Defendant refers to State v. Tisby, 33,591 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/21/00), 764 So.2d 209, writ denied, 00-2236 (La.6/1/01), 793 So.2d 181, wherein the defendant was convicted of second degree battery and sentenced to two and one-half years at hard labor. The defendant and his girlfriend were guests at a barbeque when the defendant forcibly removed his girlfriend from the gathering and took her home. After-wards, the victim went to the defendant’s house to check on the defendant’s girlfriend. When the victim tried to enter the house, the defendant swung a sling blade at him, cutting him across the face. At sentencing, the trial court noted the defendant’s criminal history, which included a conviction for simple robbery, reduced by plea agreement from a first degree robbery charge, and convictions for driving while intoxicated. Also, the forty-year-old defendant was the father of three children and a high school graduate who…