34 So. 2d 261 | La. | 1948
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *1064
On June 17, 1947, the defendant, Robert Ambrose, was tried by a jury for the offense of attempted armed robbery and found guilty as charged. Thereafter he was convicted by the court as a fourth offender, under the provisions of Act No.
Insofar as pertinent here, Act No.
"Section 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana, That any person who, after having been convicted within *1065 this state of a felony, or who, after having been convicted under the laws of any other state or of the United States, or any foreign government or country of a crime which, if committed in this state, would be a felony, commits any felony within this state, upon conviction of such felony, shall be punished as follows:
Among the convictions with which the defendant was charged as a fourth offender was one occurring on November 16, 1938, in the Criminal District Court of Orleans Parish. On that date he entered a plea of guilty to larceny from the person of $2.53, a crime declared by Act No.
Under the motion in arrest of judgment, to the overruling of which the instant bill of exceptions was reserved, defendant contends *1066
that although the offense he committed in 1938 was a felony under Act No.
Defendant's position, in our opinion, is without merit. The habitual commission of felonies is not made a crime by Act No.
A crime is defined as an act or conduct for the commission of which a penalty is denounced by our substantive criminal law. State v. Bischoff,
Of course that statute was repealed by Act No.
And Section 2 of such Code provides in part:
"Section 2. The following statutes or parts of statutes are hereby repealed and shall have no application to crimes committed after the effective date of this Code; however, crimes committed before the effective date of this Code shall be prosecuted and punished under such statutes as were in effect at the time of the commission of the crime, and, to the extent of such application only, such statutes or parts of statutes are preserved.
Further, Act No.
With respect to this recitation, it is to be noted that the Criminal Code, when repealing Act No.
It is our holding, therefore, that the district court properly overruled the motion in arrest of judgment and correctly concluded that defendant's conviction in 1938 was for the commission of a felony within the meaning and intendment of Act No.
The conviction and sentenct are affirmed.
O'NIELL, C. J., not participating.