Profile

Join date: May 13, 2022

About

Sunstonev50001whqledb1 darmar



 


Download: https://urluso.com/2k5al8





 

 . . [the record establishes] that [Officer Ochieniwa] and [R.J. Jones] were in cahoots in this instance, and I submit that is proof of an intent on the part of each one to do a certain thing . . . . With respect to the earlier argument about intent to distribute a controlled substance, we think it is clear, as the trial court apparently did, that the defendant need not prove that he had an intent to distribute a controlled substance. But we cannot agree with the trial court that a finding of an intent to distribute a controlled substance would be sufficient to establish a violation of this article. To the contrary, we think the obvious legislative purpose is to punish those who conspire with another person to possess a controlled substance, and it follows that the conspirators must be found to have had an intent to do what the legislature in this article has said it is an illegal act to do. As explained above, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences for the offenses of conspiracy to commit bribery and to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Jones was indicted for and convicted of four counts of bribery. In the course of that same proceeding, Jones entered into a plea bargain, agreeing to plead guilty to two of the four counts, and the remaining two counts were dismissed. His sentencing took place one week after his conviction for the instant offense. This agreement was to run consecutively to the sentence he was then serving for the offenses of which he had just been convicted. Jones argues that the legislature did not intend that a person convicted for multiple acts of bribery should be sentenced consecutively. He notes that La.R.S. 14:118 permits, but does not require, that sentences be served concurrently. The defendant's argument is not without some basis. Louisiana's multiple offender statute, La.R.S. 15:529.1, provides that, [w]hen the defendant is convicted of a felony [and two prior convictions within the last five years are proven], the court shall impose a sentence of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than one-half the longest term and not more than twice the longest term prescribed for a first conviction. In all cases, the judge shall specify that the sentences imposed shall run concurrently or consecutively. (Emphasis added.) In the case before us, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences pursuant to the multiple offender statute. For *817 reasons that we have already discussed, we think the trial

 

 

44926395d7


neufert pdf free download 11

Equipped Music Slow Motion Tokyo Soundscapes Vol 3 WAV REX212

ardfry psd codec v1.6.1.0 keygen 58

HD Online Player (Saawan Ko Aane Do 3 full movie downl)

Cross and Crime (Ch 54 59) raw rar


Sunstonev50001whqledb1 darmar

More actions