State v. Cox, 46192
| Decision Date | 14 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 46192,46192 |
| Citation | 243 La. 917,148 So.2d 600 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. B. Elton COX. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Robert F. Collins, Nils R. Douglas, Lolis E. Elie, New Orleans, Murphy W. Bell, Baton Rouge, Carl Rachlin, for defendant-appellant.
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sargent Pitcher, Jr., Dist. Atty., John F. Ward, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Alex W. Wall, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant, B. Elton Cox, was charged by bill of information with the violation of LSA-R.S. 14:401 relating to obstructing justice. This crime is punishable by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or imprisonment of not more than one year or both.
Upon trial the accused was adjudged guilty. Thereupon the minutes of court disclose that counsel for the accused moved for an order of appeal returnable to this court. The district attorney having suggested that the motion was premature, 'counsel for the accused then stated to the court he would reiterate his motion immediately after sentence was passed' and, in effect, withdrew his motion for appeal.
The court then sentenced the accused 'to pay a fine of $5,000 and to be confined in the parish jail for one year or in default of the payment of said fine to be imprisoned one year additional* * *'
Counsel for the accused 'excepted' to the verdict and sentence of the court and reserved a formal bill of exceptions. Thereafter, on motion of counsel for accused an order of appeal was granted returnable to this court. This court has jurisdiction of this appeal by virtue of Article VII, Section 10, Paragraph 7, of the LSA-Constitution.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the sentence, pronounced immediately after the verdict, was illegal in that it was imposed contrary to LSA-R.S. 15:521, which recites: 'In all criminal cases at least twenty-four hours shall elapse between conviction and sentence, unless the accused waive the delay and ask for the imposition of sentence at once; * * *.'
The State's position, we assume, 1 is the same which it advocated in State v. Clemmons, 243 La. 264, 142 So.2d 794 (1962). There it was contended that when defense counsel stated to the court that he would reiterate his motion for appeal after sentencing, a waiver of the twenty-four hour delay to which he was entitled occurred, the State asserting by argument this statement evidenced a request by the accused for immediate sentencing. In support of that position, the case of State v. Woods, 220 La. 162, 55 So.2d 902 (1951), was cited as authority. In the case of State v. Woods it was recognized that the delay contemplated by LSA-R.S. 15:521 need not be expressly waived; that a waiver...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...281 So.2d 702 (La.1973); State v. Luquette, 275 So.2d 396 (La.1973); State v. Palmer, 251 La. 759, 206 So.2d 485 (1968); State v. Cox, 243 La. 917, 148 So.2d 600 (1963); State v. Gordon, 214 La. 822, 38 So.2d 794 (1949); State v. Cooley, 185 La. 1032, 171 So. 435 When the error appears by a......
-
State v. Cox
...the opportunity to take any procedural steps to which he was entitled during the delay provided by that statute. See, State v. Cox, 243 La. 917, 148 So.2d 600. 1 This appeal is from the defendant's conviction of violating Section 14:401 of the Revised Statutes of 1950 2 and his sentence the......
-
State v. Scott, 47995
... ... State v. Mistich, 186 La. 174, 171 So. 841, State v. Woods, 220 La. 162, 55 So.2d 902, State ex rel. Cox v. Clemmons, 243 La. 264, 142 So.2d 794, and State v. Cox, 243 La. 917, 148 So.2d 600 ... Nevertheless, such counsel suggest in the ... ...
-
State v. James
...State v. Woods, 220 La. 162, 55 So.2d 902 (1951); State ex rel. Cox v. Clemmons, 243 La. 264, 142 So.2d 794 (1962), and State v. Cox, 243 La. 917, 148 So.2d 600 (1963). Of more recent vintage, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. O'Neal, 328 So.2d 100, 104 (La.1976), stated, "The record......