State v. Laborde, K

CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
Citation543 So.2d 1051
Docket NumberNo. K,K
PartiesSTATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Walter LABORDE, Defendant-Relator. 89-437. 543 So.2d 1051
Decision Date24 April 1989

Marion A. French, Alexandria, for defendant-relator.

Henry Lemoine, Jr., City Prosecutor, Pineville, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before FORET, KNOLL and KING, JJ.

Relator was convicted of a misdemeanor offense on April 8, 1987 and was sentenced on April 22, 1987. On May 4, 1987, relator obtained from the trial court an order for appeal of his conviction and sentence which was made returnable on June 30, 1987. After the record was forwarded to this Court for lodging of the appeal, this Court returned the record to the trial court with instructions to the trial court and counsel for relator to seek judicial review in this Court by application for writ of review. See, La.C.Cr.P. Art. 912.1(C)(1). In the interim, relator satisfied his sentence by paying his fine and satisfactorily completing the terms of his probation. Relator did not seek a writ of review of his conviction and sentence until February 29, 1989 when the trial court denied relator's application for a writ of review. This writ application was then filed to review the propriety of the trial court's denial of relator's application for a writ of review of his conviction and sentence. Satisfaction of sentence by relator renders this case moot so as to preclude review of, or attack on, relator's conviction and sentence. Cf. State v. Morris, 328 So.2d 65 (La.1976).

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Malone
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • 1 Diciembre 2009
    ...... . The Defendant's sentence has been satisfied; thus, the case is moot so as to preclude review of, or attack on, the conviction. State v. Morris, 328 So.2d 65 (La.1976); State v. Laborde, 543 So.2d 1051 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989). 1 . .         The defendant subsequently filed a writ application with this Court, which we granted. 2 . DISCUSSION .         It is well-settled that "courts will not decide abstract, hypothetical or moot controversies, or render advisory ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT