STATE OF LOUISIANA Vs. RALPH Q. PAZE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2001-KA-2335 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL RALPH Q. PAZE * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 420-666, SECTION “C” Honorable Sharon K. Hunter, Judge ****** Chief Judge William H. Byrnes III ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge William H. Byrnes III, Judge Charles R. Jones, Judge Patricia Rivet Murray) Harry F. Connick District Attorney Anne M. Dickerson Assistant District Attorney 619 South White Street New Orleans, LA 70119 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE Mary Constance Hanes LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT P. O. Box 4015 New Orleans, LA 701784015 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED As per State v. Benjamin, this Court performed an independent, thorough review of the pleadings, minute entries, bill of information, and transcripts in the appeal record. Defendant was properly charged by bill of information with a violation of La. R.S. 14:62.2, and the bill was signed by an assistant district attorney. Defendant was present and represented by counsel at arraignment, the motion hearing and sentencing. Our review of the record reveals a potential error patent. When the defendant was sentenced, the trial court did not restrict the benefits of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for one year as mandated under La. R.S.14:62.2. However, under La. R.S. 15:529.1(G), the defendant’s sentence is imposed without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence. Thus, the sentence appears to be illegally lenient because parole was not restricted. However, in instances where the statutory restrictions are not recited at sentencing, they are contained in the sentence, whether or not imposed by the sentencing court. La. R.S. 15:301.1A. Moreover, in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La. 11/29/01), 800 So.2d 790, the Supreme Court has ruled that paragraph A self-activates the correction and eliminates the need to remand for a ministerial correction of an illegally lenient sentence, which may result from the failure of the sentencing court to impose punishment in conformity with that provided in the statute. The 180-day time period referred to in La. R.S.15:301.1D is not applicable to La. R.S. 15:301.1A. Id. Hence, this Court need take no action to correct the trial court’s failure to specify that the defendant’s sentence be served without benefit of parole for one year, or without probation or suspension of sentence. The correction is statutorily effected. La. R.S. 15:301.1A. Our independent review reveals no non-frivolous issue and no trial court ruling, which arguably supports the appeal. Defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed. Appellate counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
