State v. Sutton
State v. Sutton
Opinion of the Court
Although the trial court has ruled on the relator’s application for post conviction relief thus rendering this application for writ of mandamus moot, we nonetheless will consider relator’s claims for post conviction relief for reasons of judicial economy.
Relator first claims that his plea to the charge of simple burglary was induced by a plea bargain which was not kept. He claims that he was informed by his attorney that his sentence would not be enhanced from the six years agreed upon despite the multiple bill. Relator claims that he understood this to mean he would still get good time. The length of relator’s sentence was not enhanced on the multiple bill but relator’s sentence was made subject to the provisions of La.R.S. 15:529.1 which denies good time. It is apparent from the record that relator understood he would be multiple billed prior to entry of his original plea and there is no reason to believe that relator did not understand his plea. This court finds no error in the judgment of the trial court as to the denial of relator’s claim that his guilty plea to the instant offense is invalid.
Relator next claims that his multiple bill adjudication is invalid.
Relator pled guilty to an oral multiple bill on February 26, 1987 and was sentenced under the bill to serve 6 years in
Accordingly, relator’s sentence under the oral multiple bill is vacated and his original sentence on his guilty plea is reinstated.
This matter is remanded to the trial court for such further action on the written multiple bill filed on March 6, 1987 as is consistent with this order.
MULTIPLE OFFENDER SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.