Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Dorsey

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit

September 4, 2019

STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
ADRIAN A. DORSEY A/K/A ADRIAN ANTON DORSEY

          APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF BEAUREGARD, NO. CR-2016-500 HONORABLE C. KERRY ANDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE

         ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

          Edward Kelly Bauman Louisiana Appellate Project COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLEE: Adrian A. Dorsey

          Adrian A. Dorsey In Proper Person D.C.I. Dorm 2 PRO SE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLEE: Adrian A. Dorsey

          James R. Lestage District Attorney COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/APPELLEE: State of Louisiana

          Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, John E. Conery, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.

          JOHN E. CONERY JUDGE

         Defendant, Adrian Anton Dorsey, was charged with possession of marijuana, fourth offense, in violation of La.R.S. 40:966, and resisting an officer with force or violence, in violation of La.R.S. 14:108.2. A jury convicted Defendant as charged. The trial court thereafter adjudicated Defendant as a fourth felony habitual offender and sentenced him to thirty-two years at hard labor on each count to run concurrently. This court maintained Defendant's convictions following initial review. See State v. Dorsey, 18-250 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/18), 260 So.3d 616. However, the habitual offender adjudication and resulting sentences were vacated on error patent review following a determination that the delay of La.Code Crim.P. art. 873 was not followed. Id.

         The Louisiana Supreme Court subsequently granted the State's writ of certiorari and ruled:

The court of appeal erred in finding as an error patent that the district court did not adhere to the 24-hour statutory sentencing delay required by La.C.Cr.P. art. 873. See State v. Dorsey, 18-0250 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/18), 260 So.3d 616. Whether the article requires a 24-hour sentencing delay between the denial of post-verdict motions and the commencement of a habitual offender adjudication, whether the article was violated under the circumstances here where the imposition of sentence did not occur until three weeks after the habitual offender adjudication, and whether defendant was prejudiced as a result are complex questions that cannot and should not be resolved in errors patent review. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeal, reinstate the sentence, and remand to the court of appeal for consideration of the pretermitted claims.

State v. Dorsey, 19-0349, p. 1 (La. 6/26/19), _ So.3d _, _[1] (per curiam). We turn to consideration of the remaining claims.

         ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

         By his appeal, Defendant assigned three errors and questioned whether: 1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support the convictions for resisting an officer by force or violence or for possession of marijuana; 2) the thirty-two year sentence for resisting an officer by force or violence is illegal as the trial court erred in considering that offense a crime of violence for purposes of sentencing; and whether 3) the thirty-two year sentences for possession of marijuana, fourth offense, and resisting an officer with force or violence, are constitutionally excessive. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.