From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Mims

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Jun 18, 1993
619 So. 2d 1059 (La. 1993)

Summary

In Mims, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a defendant who urges excessiveness of sentence as a ground in a motion to reconsider sentence need not allege any specific ground other than excessiveness of sentence in order to preserve appellate consideration of a bare claim of constitutional excessiveness.

Summary of this case from State v. Grigsby

Opinion

No. 93-K-0808.

June 18, 1993.

Applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 24667-KA; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. "B", No. 129511.


Defendant was convicted of purse snatching and second degree battery and was ultimately sentenced as a second offender. He then moved for reconsideration of the sentence, urging that it was excessive.

On appeal, the court of appeal refused to review defendant's claim of excessiveness of sentence because defendant did not assert in his motion for reconsideration the reasons why the sentence was alleged to be excessive, 614 So.2d 776.

The court of appeal correctly observed that one purpose of the motion to reconsider, mandated by La. Code Crim.Proc. art. 881.1, is to allow the defendant to raise any errors that may have occurred in sentencing while the trial judge still has the jurisdiction to change or correct the sentence. The defendant may point out such errors or deficiencies, or may present argument or evidence not considered in the original sentencing, thereby preventing the necessity of a remand for resentencing.

Under Article 881.1 the defendant must file a motion to reconsider and set forth the "specific grounds" upon which the motion is based in order to raise an objection to the sentence on appeal. However, in order to preserve a claim of constitutional excessiveness, the defendant need not allege any more specific ground than that the sentence is excessive. If the defendant does not allege any specific ground for excessiveness or present any argument or evidence not previously considered by the court at original sentencing, then the defendant does not lose the right to appeal the sentence; the defendant is simply relegated to having the appellate court consider the bare claim of excessiveness. Article 881.1 only precludes the defendant from presenting arguments to the court of appeal which were not presented to the trial court at a point in the proceedings when the trial court was in a position to correct the deficiency.

The court of appeal therefore erred in the present case by refusing to consider the defendant's appeal on the limited ground of excessiveness.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is set aside, and the case is remanded to consider defendant's claim of excessiveness of sentence in accordance with this opinion.

HALL, J., not on panel; recused.


Summaries of

State v. Mims

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Jun 18, 1993
619 So. 2d 1059 (La. 1993)

In Mims, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a defendant who urges excessiveness of sentence as a ground in a motion to reconsider sentence need not allege any specific ground other than excessiveness of sentence in order to preserve appellate consideration of a bare claim of constitutional excessiveness.

Summary of this case from State v. Grigsby

In State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059, 1060 (La. 1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that when a defendant fails to provide any specific ground for excessiveness upon which the motion is based, "then the defendant does not lose the right to appeal the sentence; the defendant is simply relegated to having the appellate court consider the bare claim of excessiveness."

Summary of this case from State v. Spencer

In State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059, 1060 (La. 1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that when a defendant fails to provide any specific ground for excessiveness upon which the motion to reconsider is based "then the defendant does not lose the right to appeal the sentence; the defendant is simply relegated to having the appellate court consider the bare claim of excessiveness."

Summary of this case from State v. West

In Mims, the appellate court refused to review the defendant's excessive sentence claim because, while the defendant had asserted in his motion to reconsider sentence that the sentence was excessive, he had not alleged any reasons why it was allegedly excessive.

Summary of this case from State v. Robinson

In State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993), the defendant's motion to reconsider sentence alleged only that the sentence imposed was excessive.

Summary of this case from State v. Erwin

In State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993), the defendant moved for reconsideration of a sentence which alleged only that his sentence was excessive.

Summary of this case from State v. Medious

In State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993) (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that (under La. Code Crim. P. art. 881.

Summary of this case from State v. Jones

In State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993), the defendant moved for reconsideration of a sentence which alleged only that his sentence was excessive.

Summary of this case from State v. Curtis

In State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059, 1059-1060 (La. 1993), the Supreme Court indicated that "[i]f the defendant does not allege any specific ground for excessiveness [in his motion to reconsider sentence] or present any argument or evidence not previously considered by the court at original sentencing, then the defendant does not lose the right to appeal the sentence; the defendant is simply relegated to having the appellate court consider the bare claim of excessiveness."

Summary of this case from State v. Andrews

In State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993) (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that (under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 881.

Summary of this case from State v. Scott

In State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059 (La. 1993), a motion to reconsider sentence was filed but did not allege any specific ground for excessiveness. This court had determined that such a motion to reconsider was inadequate; however, the supreme court reversed, finding that defendant did not lose his right to appeal the "bare claim of excessiveness."

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

State v. Mims

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF LOUISIANA v. IRA JOE MIMS

Court:Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date published: Jun 18, 1993

Citations

619 So. 2d 1059 (La. 1993)

Citing Cases

State v. Mims

After remand by the Louisiana Supreme Court, this court is presented with the issue of constitutional…

State v. Theriot

The record indicates the Defendant did not file a Motion to Reconsider Sentence as required by La. Code…