# State v. Harvey

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 13, 2009 · 2008 La.App. 4 Cir. 0217

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655805

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Louisiana v. Dwayne HARVEY
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** May 13, 2009
- **Citations:** 2008 La.App. 4 Cir. 0217; 12 So. 3d 496; 2009 La. App. LEXIS 801; 2009 WL 1332344
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Tobias
- **Judges:** Tobias, Belsome, Bonin
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655805

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that defendant convicted on same date of two drug offenses could be sentenced as a habitual offender on both convictions, citing Shaw, supra.
- affirming a sixty-year sentence imposed on a defendant convicted of distribution of cocaine and adjudicated a second felony offender
- affirming defendant’s sixty-year sentence for distribution of cocaine as a second felony offender

## Opinion text

TOBIAS, J.,
concurs in part and dissents in part.
1,1 respectfully concur in the result reached by the majority. The decision of the trial court is properly affirmed.
However, I respectfully dissent from the majoritys holding that the “state exceeded the bounds of proper argument and the district court abused its discretion by overruling the defense’s objection [during the prosecution’s rebuttal].” The prosecution’s statement that witnesses who were not called to testify were available to both the state and the defendant is merely a statement of fact and within the parameters of State v. Clark, 01-2087 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/25/02) , 828 So.2d 1173 , and its progeny. Thus, I find no abuse of discretion or error of the part of the trial judge, and the majority errors in finding that the statement was harmless error. No error occurred, harmless or otherwise.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655805. Public record. Not legal advice.