State v. PerretState v. Perret
The defendant, Ron Perret, was charged by bill of information with filing a false claim for insurance benefits valued between $2,500.00 and $10,000.00 in violаtion of
On appeal Perret assigns the following error:
Whether the state has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislаture did not intend to extinguish this prosecution.
The defendant contends the state failed to prove beyond a reasonаble doubt that the repeal of the substantive statute did not extinguish the prosecution.
The defendant was charged with committing thе offense “between December 13,1991 through December 18,1991.” In the interim between the institution of prosecution and the entering оf the defendant’s guilty plea, the legislature repealed the substantive statute,
A. It shall be unlawful for any рerson intentionally to present or cause to be presented any written or oral statement as part of or in suрport of or denial of a claim for payment of other benefit pursuant to an insurance policy, knowing that such stаtement contains false information concerning any fact material to such claim. It shall be unlawful for any person intentionally to prepare or make any written or oral statement intended to be presented in connection with or in support of denial of any claim for payment or other benefit pursuant to an insurance policy, knowing that such statement contains false information concerning any fact material to such claim.
* * * * * *
B. (2) When the claim amounts to a value of two thousand five hundred dollars or more, but less than a value of ten thousand dollars, the offender shall be imprisoned, with оr without hard labor, for not more than five years, or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
La.R.S. 22:1223 now provides:
Any person who, with the intent to injurе, defraud, or deceive any insurance company, or any insured or other party in interest, or any third party claimant:
(1) Presents or causes to be presented any written or oral statement including computer-generated documents as part of or in support of or denial of a claim for payment or other benefit pursuant to an insurance policy, knowing that such statement contains any false, incomplete, or fraudulent information concerning any fact or thing matеrial to such claim; or
(2) Assists, abets, solicits, or conspires with another to prepare or make any written or oral stаtement that is intended to be presented to any insurance company, insured or other party in interest or third party claimant in connection with, or in support of or denial or any claim for payment of other benefit pursuant to an insurance policy, knowing that such statement contains any false, incomplete, or fraudulent information concerning any fact or thing material to such claim; is guilty of a felony and shall be subjected to a term of imprisonment, with or without hard labor, not tо exceed five years, or a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars, or both, on each count. The criminal provisions of this Section shall be investigated, enforced, or prosecuted only by the proper law enforcemеnt and prosecutorial agencies.
The definition of conduct which would constitute insurance fraud and applicаble criminal penalties are now found in
Admittedly, the repealing act did not include “a saving clause” as to
The repeal of any law shall not have the effect of releasing or extinguishing any penalty, forfeiture or liability, civil or criminal, incurred under such law unless the repealing act expressly so provides, and such law shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture or liability, (emphasis added).
Thus, thе repeal of a penal statute does not extinguish nor alter the liability for penalty of the former statute, unless the legislative so intends. State v. Paciera,
Under the general saving provision, the repeal of
The dеfendant also argues that a reasonable person must harbor a reasonable doubt as to whether the legislaturе intended such an extinguishment considering that a “savings clause” was not included in the act which repealed the statute and therefore the defendant’s conviction should be quashed; however, the defendant can cite no authority which requires thе state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that extinguishment was not intended.
Moreover, the defendant pled guilty withоut reserving any rights to appeal. A guilty plea entered without condition or reservation waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings prior to the plea and precludes review thereof either by appeal or post-conviction remedy. State v. McKinney,
Additionally, we have examined the record for errors patent and have found none.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated the defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.