La. Stat. Ann. § 40:966

For heroin possession committed before the 2001 amendment, § 40:966(C)(1) required four to ten years at hard labor without probation or suspension of sentence.

State v. Carter · filed 2001-10-03(C)(1)

The defendant, John Carter, was charged with violating La. R.S. 40:966(A), possession of heroin, on 31 May 2001, which provided for a sentence of "imprisonment at hard labor for not less than four years nor more than ten years without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence." La. R.S. 40:966(C)(1). ... It is well settled that the penalty set out in a statute at the time of offense applies. ... Therefore, the sentence is illegal and must be vacated.

The 2001 reduction in penalties under § 40:966(C) applies only to offenses committed after the amendment took effect.

State v. Martin · filed 2002-01-30(C)

Thus, the amendments in Act No. 403 to various criminal statutes, including La. R.S. 40:966(C), although lessening the penalties, do not apply to persons who violated the statute prior to the amendments.

The amendment to § 40:966(C) allowing suspended sentences applies to offenses committed after June 15, 2001; earlier offenses are sentenced under the penalty provisions in effect when committed.

State v. Mayeux · filed 2002-06-21(C)

For the reasons enunciated in the case of State v. Sugasti , decided this date, we hold that the amendment to LSA-R.S. 40:966(C) allowing for a suspended sentence applies to those cases in which the underlying offense occurred after June 15, 2001, the effective date of the amendment to the statute.

Section 40:966(B)(3)'s 2017 sentencing amendments do not apply to marijuana distribution offenses committed in 2012.

State v. Nixon · filed 2018-08-15(B)(3)

Nixon complains that Judge Teat erred in failing to sentence him in accordance with the 2017 amendments made to La. R.S. 40:966 and 40:967. ... Nixon's offenses were committed in 2012; therefore, the 2017 amendments to the sentencing provisions do not apply to his sentences.

Section 40:966 does not provide for denial of parole eligibility for simple possession of heroin.

State v. Burton · filed 1987-12-30

The sentence for simple possession of heroin does not provide for denial of parole eligibility. La.R.S. 40:966.

Section 40:966 does not authorize a sentence that denies parole eligibility.

State v. Solid · filed 1988-07-12

The defendant correctly argues that a sentence under La.R.S. 40:966 should not deny parole eligibility.

For a life sentence for heroin distribution, Section 40:966 permits denial of probation or suspension of sentence but does not permit denial of parole.

State v. Bolton · filed 1989-08-10

Although Louisiana Revised Statute Title 40 Section 966 provides for imposition of such a sentence without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence it does not provide that the sentence is to be without benefit of parole. As such we amend the defendant's sentence to delete the provision that it is to be served without benefit of parole.

Section 40:966 provides for life imprisonment without probation or suspension of sentence, but does not prohibit parole.

State v. Thomas · filed 1989-11-16

La.R.S. 40:966 only provides for life imprisonment without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence. Therefore, the defendant's sentence should be amended to delete that portion which requires that it be served without benefit of parole.

Section 40:966 does not bar parole eligibility for a sentence for attempted distribution of heroin.

State v. Lewis · filed 1990-02-15

The sentence for a conviction of attempted distribution of heroin does not deny eligibility for parole.

Section 40:966 permits a sentence without probation or suspension of sentence, but does not permit the court to deny parole eligibility.

State v. Sebble · filed 1990-08-31

Defendant was sentenced pursuant to La.R.S. 40:966 which specifies that defendant’s sentence is to be served without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence only. Parole eligibility cannot be excluded in imposing sentence.

Section 40:966 requires the sentence to be served without probation or suspension of sentence, but does not prohibit parole.

State v. Harvey · filed 1994-01-27

La. R.S. 40:966 provides the sentence must be served without benefit of “probation or suspension of sentence.”

Section 40:966(C)(1) does not prohibit parole for possession of heroin.

State v. Randle · filed 1999-12-22(C)(1)

The statute that prohibits the possession of heroin does not provide that the sentence be without benefit of parole. La. R.S. 40:966(C)(1). Because the statute does not prohibit parole, the defendant's enhanced sentence should not have prohibited parole.

Section 40:966 prohibits probation and suspension of sentence but does not prohibit parole.

State v. Barnes · filed 2001-05-23

While La. R.S. 40:966 and 15:529.1 prohibit the benefits of probation and suspension of sentence, there is no such prohibition against parole.

Section 40:966(A) does not require a sentence for heroin distribution to bar parole eligibility.

State v. Lewis · filed 2001-10-31(A)

A prohibition against parole is not required by the substantive statute for which the defendant was convicted, La. R.S. 40:966(A), and thus the sentence appears illegal.

Section 40:966(C) did not prohibit parole eligibility for simple possession of heroin at the time of the offense.

State v. Adams · filed 2002-03-27(C)

La. R.S. 40:966(C) did not prohibit parole eligibility, |Kand the transcript of sentencing indicates the court mistakenly ordered that the sentence be served “without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.” The court erred by so ordering. Therefore, the sentence is illegal and the prohibition on parole eligibility is deleted.

Section 40:966(C)(1) does not deny parole eligibility for possession of heroin.

State v. Lewis · filed 2002-09-04(C)(1)

La. R.S. 40:966(0(1) does not provide for the denial of parole.

Section 40:966(F) bars suspension of sentence and makes a defendant convicted of possessing more than sixty but less than two thousand pounds of marijuana ineligible for probation or parole for the first ten years of the sentence.

State v. Knight · filed 2002-10-30(F)

Pursuant to La. R.S. 40:966(F), the imposition of sentence shall not be suspended and a defendant is not eligible for probation or parole prior to serving the minimum ten-year sentence.

Section 40:966(B) prohibits probation and suspension of sentence but does not prohibit parole if a life sentence is commuted to a term of years.

State v. Morgan · filed 2003-03-12(B)

Mr. Morgan’s sentence contains a prohibition against parole, but the applicable sentencing provision, La. R.S. 40:966(B), prohibits only probation and suspension of sentence. As Mr. Morgan points out, La. R.S. 40:966(B) does not prohibit parole if a defendant serving a life sentence for this offense has his sentence commuted to a terms of years. Following this court’s long-standing practice of amending a sentence that improperly denies parole eligibility, we amend his sentence to remove the prohibition of parole.

Section 40:966(B)(1) requires at least five years of a heroin distribution sentence to be served without probation or suspension of sentence, but does not restrict parole.

State v. Allen · filed 2003-05-28(B)(1)

The penalty provision of that statute is contained in La. R.S. 40:966(B), which provides that the sentence shall be without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence for at least five years of the sentence. The statute does not provide, however, that the sentence is restricted as to parole.

Section 40:966(B)(1), as amended in 2001, denies probation and suspension of sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroin, but does not deny parole.

State v. Anthony · filed 2003-11-19(B)(1)

Defendant was sentenced pursuant to La. R.S. 40:966(B)(1), as amended by Acts 2001, No. 403, § 4, effective. June 15, 2001, which provides for denial of the benefits of probation and suspension of sentence only, not parole. Accordingly, we amend the defendant’s sentence to eliminate the denial of the benefit of parole.

Section 40:966 requires at least five years of imprisonment without benefits and leaves the sentencing court to determine how much of the sentence must be served without benefits.

State v. Hopson · filed 2005-04-06

This is not a matter which is corrected automatically by operation of La. R.S. 15:301.1 [1] , since that statute applies to determinate terms of sentence to be served without benefits; the "at least" language contained in La. R.S. 40:966, supra, requires an exercise of the sentencing court's discretion and, therefore, requires remand for determination of the portion of the sentence to be served without benefits.

Section 40:966(B)(1) requires a sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroin to exclude probation and suspension of sentence, while allowing parole eligibility.

State v. Jackson · filed 2006-11-29(B)(1)

Mr. Jackson was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute heroin. The sentence for this crime must be imposed without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence; however, parole eligibility is not prohibited. La. R.S. 40:966 B(1). ... Because the sentence as imposed is illegally excessive, we amend the sentence to delete the prohibition of parole eligibility.

Section 40:966(B)(3) does not authorize a sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute to be served without parole eligibility.

State of Louisiana v. Paul Roberts, Jr. · filed 2007-01-17(B)(3)

The penalty provision does not authorize the trial court to impose any of the sentence without benefit of parole. Thus, the trial court improperly denied parole eligibility. Accordingly, we amend Defendant’s sentence on that count to delete the denial of parole eligibility for the first five years.

Section 40:966(B)(3) does not authorize restrictions on parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Kerlec · filed 2007-04-11(B)(3)

La. R.S. 40:966(B)(3), under which the Defendant was sentenced on count two, does not deny parole or probation eligibility or eligibility for suspension of sentence. The trial court lacked authority to place such restrictions on the first five years of the imposed sentence.

Section 40:966(B)(3) does not require or authorize denial of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

State of Louisiana v. Champagne · filed 2007-05-30(B)(3)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:966(B)(3) states that the penalty for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is imprisonment at hard labor “for not less than five nor more than thirty years” and “a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars.” Here, the trial court sentenced the defendant to ten years at hard labor, with the first five years to be served without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The statute does not require or authorize the denial of these benefits.

Section 40:966(B)(3) does not authorize denying parole for attempted possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

State v. Collins · filed 2009-05-27(B)(3)

However, the defendant is correct, and the state concedes, that the trial court erred in denying the defendant the benefit of parole for the attempted possession with intent to distribute conviction. For that reason, we amend the sentence to delete the prohibition of parole, but affirm the remainder of his sentence.

Section 40:966(B)(1) does not require a sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroin to be served without the possibility of parole.

State v. Collins · filed 2009-12-08(B)(1)

However, La. R.S. 40:966 B(l) does not require a defendant’s sentence to be served without benefit of parole. Accordingly, the sentence is amended to allow for the possibility of parole in accordance with the applicable sentencing provisions.

Section 40:966(B)(1) requires part of the sentence for possession of heroin with intent to distribute to be served without probation or suspension of sentence, but does not deny parole.

State v. Brown · filed 2010-02-10(B)(1)

However, La. R.S. 40:966 B(l), providing the penalty for possession of heroin with the intent to distribute, simply provides that a minimum part of the sentence be served without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence. There is no provision for the denial of the benefit of parole.

Section 40:966(B)(3) imposes no restrictions on parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana.

State v. Harrell · filed 2010-05-11(B)(3)

The defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana. We cannot say that the defendant failed to enter a knowingly and voluntary plea on Count 2 because the trial court failed to advise him of statutory benefit restrictions. There were no statutory benefit restrictions on Count 2.

Section 40:966(B)(1) requires at least five years of a sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroin to be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Howard · filed 2010-05-25(B)(1)

La. R.S. 40:966 B(1) requires that at least five years of Howard's sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroin be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The trial court placed no restrictions on the sentence on Count 1. Since the statute requires the exercise of the trial court's sentencing discretion in imposing restriction of benefits, we vacate the illegal sentence and remand for re-sentencing in accordance with the statute.

Section 40:966(B)(1) does not prohibit parole for possession with intent to distribute heroin, even when the sentence is enhanced under the Habitual Offender Law.

State v. Payne · filed 2011-01-25(B)(1)

The underlying statute in the present case does not provide for the prohibition of parole. As such, Payne’s enhanced sentence should not have been imposed with the parole restriction.

Section 40:966(B)(3) does not require restrictions on probation, parole, or suspension of sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

State v. Cass · filed 2011-04-13(B)(3)

Louisiana 40:966(B)(3), regarding the penalty for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, does not require any restrictions on the benefits of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

Section 40:966(C)(1) does not prohibit parole.

State v. Magee · filed 2013-03-06(C)(1)

Also, La. R.S. 40:966(C)(1), the underlying statute, does not prohibit parole. Thus, the defendant’s sentence should be amended to delete the prohibition of parole.

For a 2006 conviction for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, § 40:966(B)(1) required at least five years without probation or suspension of sentence but did not prohibit parole.

State v. Robinson · filed 2013-09-25(B)(1)

In 2006, La. R.S. 40:966(B)(1) provided that a person convicted of possession with intent to distribute heroin shall be sentenced to serve not less than five, nor more than 50 years at hard labor, with at least five years to be served without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence, and may, in addition, be required to pay a fine of not more than $50,000. There was no prohibition against parole.

Section 40:966(A) does not authorize a restriction on parole eligibility.

State v. Gayden · filed 2015-02-11(A)

The trial judge restricted parole on count two; however, La. R.S. 40:966(A) does not provide any restriction on parole.

Section 40:966(B)(1) does not restrict parole eligibility for possession with intent to distribute heroin.

State v. Robinson · filed 2015-09-30(B)(1)

However, neither La. R.S. 15:529.1(G) nor La. R.S. 40:966(B)(1) contains any restrictions on parole eligibility. Therefore, the inclusion of the restriction on parole renders Defendant’s sentence illegal.

Section 40:966(B)(1) does not bar parole eligibility for possession with intent to distribute heroin.

State v. Ussin · filed 2015-12-23(B)(1)

However, the trial court improperly imposed sentence without the benefit of parole. La. R.S. 40:966(B)(1) does not preclude eligibility for parole.

Section 40:966(E)(3) does not bar parole eligibility for a person convicted of third-offense marijuana possession.

State v. Ladd · filed 2016-04-13(E)(3)

Neither La. R.S. 40:966 E(3) nor La. R.S. 15:529.1 restricts a person convicted of possession of marijuana third offense from the benefit of parole.

Section 40:966(B)(1) requires at least five years without probation or suspension of sentence; a sentence providing for neither benefit satisfies that restriction even without an express order.

State v. Baptiste · filed 2016-12-14(B)(1)

Here, La. R.S. 40:966(B)(1) provides that “at least five years” of the sentence must be served without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence. ... However, in this case, defendant’s sentence does not provide for any period of probation or suspended sentence on count one. Accordingly, we find that the trial judge’s sentence on count one imposed the legally mandated sentencing restriction.

Section 40:966(B)(2) requires a five to thirty year hard labor term, with at least five years served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Ables · filed 2017-02-08(B)(2)

Because La. R.S. 40:966(B)(2) provides that “at least five years” of the sentence shall be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, we vacate defendant’s enhanced sentence for his conviction of possession with intent to distribute Acetyl Fentanyl and remand for resentencing.

Section 40:966(A) does not authorize a parole restriction for possession with intent to distribute heroin.

State v. Brown · filed 2018-02-21(A)

However, La. R.S. 40:966(A) does not provide any restriction on parole.

At the time of Dixon's offense, Section 40:966(B)(4)(a) did not authorize a parole restriction for possession with intent to distribute heroin.

State v. Dixon · filed 2018-03-14(B)(4)(a)

First, the record reflects that the trial judge restricted parole on count one; however, at the time of the offense, La. R.S. 40:966(B)(4)(a) did not provide any restriction on parole. ... Accordingly, we amend the sentence to delete the restriction on parole.

Section 40:966(B)(4)(a), as it applied at the time of the offense, did not restrict parole eligibility for a sentence for distributing heroin.

State v. Taylor · filed 2018-10-17(B)(4)(a)

First, we find that the trial judge erroneously restricted the benefit of parole for ten years of defendant's sentence for distribution of heroin. At the time of the offense, La. R.S. 40:966(B)(4)(a) did not provide any restriction on parole.

Section 40:966(A) does not authorize a parole restriction for possession with intent to distribute heroin.

State v. Julien · filed 2017-09-13(A)

The .applicable sentencing statue, La. R.S. 40:966(A), does not provide any restriction on parole. Accordingly, we amend defendant’s sentence on count three to delete, the restriction on parole.

At the time of the offense, § 40:966(B)(4)(a) required at least ten years without probation or suspension of sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroin, but did not prohibit parole.

State v. Hankton · filed 2018-07-31(B)(4)(a)

La. R.S. 40:966(B)(4)(a) provides that the penalty for this offense is "imprisonment at hard labor for not less than ten years nor more than fifty years, at least ten of which shall be served without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence." ... The statute does not provide for the prohibition of parole.

A sentence for heroin possession under § 40:966(C)(1) carries no restriction on parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Nelson · filed 2018-11-07(C)(1)

Defendant, Charles E. Nelson, appeals his convictions and sentences for one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and one count of possession with intent to distribute hydrocodone, in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A), and one count of possession of heroin, in violation of La. R.S. 40:966(C). ... The transcript reflects that the trial court erroneously ordered that the first two years of all three of Mr. Nelson's sentences were to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, even though there should have been no restrictions on counts two and three.

Under the version of § 40:966(B)(4)(a) effective on July 19, 2017, a first offense of possession with intent to distribute heroin required at least ten years without probation or suspension of sentence but did not restrict parole eligibility.

State v. England · filed 2019-04-03(B)(4)(a)

First, the trial court improperly restricted the benefit of parole for defendant's conviction of possession with intent to distribute heroin. On the date of the offense, July 19, 2017, La. R.S. 40:966(B)(4)(a) provided that first offense with intent to distribute heroin was punishable by a term of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than ten nor more than fifty years, at least ten years of which should be served without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence, and may, in addition, be required to pay a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars. ... Thus, at the time of the committed offense, the applicable statute only provided for a restriction of probation and suspension of sentence for at least ten years.

Section 40:966(B)(1)'s ten-year restriction on probation or suspension of sentence takes effect automatically even if the sentencing court omits it.

State v. Chirlow · filed 2018-12-12(B)(1)

Therefore, we find that the restrictive provision of La. R.S. 40:966(B) is self-activating thus making corrective action unnecessary.

Section 40:966(B)(2) requires at least five years of a sentence for possession with intent to distribute MDMA to be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Lawrence · filed 2019-05-15(B)(2)

Because La. R.S. 40:966 B(2) provides that "at least five years" of the sentence shall be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, we vacate defendant's enhanced sentence and remand for resentencing, including advising defendant of and specifying at sentencing that portion of the sentence to be served without benefit of parole.

Section 40:966(B)(4)(b) required at least ten years without probation or suspension of sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroin, but did not authorize a parole restriction.

State of Louisiana Versus Corey Bannister · filed 2019-11-27(B)(4)(b)

At the time of the offense the sentencing range was not less than ten nor more than ninety-nine years imprisonment with at least ten years to be served without benefit ... of probation or suspension of sentence. See La. R.S. 40:966(B)(4)(b). The statute did not provide for the restriction of parole.

Section 40:966(B)(4)(a) does not restrict parole eligibility for a sentence imposed under it.

State of Louisiana Versus Corey Woods · filed 2020-09-09(B)(4)(a)

Next, the transcript reflects that the trial court ordered the first ten years of defendant’s sentences to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence; however, La. R.S. 40:966(B)(4)(a) does not restrict parole.

Section 40:966(B)(4)(a) did not authorize a parole restriction for possession with intent to distribute heroin at the time of the offense.

State of Louisiana Versus Dewayne A. Allen · filed 2020-04-30(B)(4)(a)

The statute did not provide for the restriction of parole.

Section 40:966’s provisions governing possession of heroin with intent to distribute withstand the constitutional challenge raised here.

State v. Reliford · filed 1977-02-10

We have previously rejected contentions similar to those now advanced of the unconstitutionality of provisions of the statute upon which the defendant was ... convicted.

Section 40:966 may criminalize possession of marijuana for personal use in the home without violating constitutional privacy rights.

State v. Chrisman · filed 1978-11-02

While we recognize the importance of an individual's right to privacy, particularly in the sanctity of his own home, at the present time we are unable to conclude that constitutionally protected privacy interests are violated by a statutory scheme making the possession of marijuana in one's own home a criminal offense.

A sentence for third-offense marijuana possession may be enhanced under the habitual offender law if the prior marijuana convictions are not also used as predicates for that enhancement.

State v. Brooks · filed 2008-10-29(E)(3)

Applying that reasoning to the instant case, we conclude that a sentence for possession of marijuana, third offense, can be enhanced under the habitual offender law as long as none of the marijuana convictions are used as prior felony convictions in the habitual offender bill of information.

Section 40:966(E) permits a prior adult misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction to enhance a later charge even if the prior offense carried no right to a jury trial.

State v. George · filed 2010-03-11(E)

The trial court did not err in denying the appellants’ motions to quash based upon their claims that La. R.S. 40:966 E is unconstitutional because of the use of at least one prior misdemeanor possession of marijuana conviction to enhance their present charges felonies.

Section 40:966(E) enhances penalties for repeated marijuana possession; prior convictions used to make the offense a felony cannot also be used to enhance its sentence under the Habitual Offender Law.

State v. Causey · filed 2011-06-16(E)

Using the same prior convictions to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony and then to enhance the sentence on the felony is not permissible because what would be a misdemeanor as a first offense is elevated to the status of a felony in subsequent offenses, a conviction for repeated possession of marijuana is not subject to being further enhanced under the Habitual Offender Law. Possession of marijuana, fourth offense, is already an enhanced offense.

Section 40:966(E)(3) allows prior misdemeanor or felony marijuana possession convictions to establish a third offense, which may then receive a habitual offender enhancement based on a separate conviction.

State v. Holloway · filed 2013-07-03(E)(3)

Thus under Lewis, because La. R.S. 40:966(E)(3) does not distinguish between the type of offense (misdemeanor versus felony) needed to qualify as third offense marijuana possession and because La. R.S. 15:529.1 does not provide restrictions on the type of felony which may be enhanced by the habitual offender law, neither statute prohibits the defendant from being sentenced as a habitual offender in this case.

Section 40:966(E)(1)(a)(iii) applies prospectively and excludes only qualifying first marijuana convictions under items (i) or (ii) from use as predicate convictions.

State v. Logue · filed 2017-04-12(E)(1)(a)(iii)

We believe that the legislature intended La. R.S. 40:966(E)(l)(a)(iii) to apply prospectively. The phrase “the conviction used as a predicate conviction for enhancement purposes” is particularly instructive. “The conviction” can logically apply only to a conviction and sentence under La. R.S. 40:966(E)(l)(a)(i) or (ii); if the individual had a prior conviction, he necessarily could not be sentenced as a first offender under La. R.S. 40:966(E)(l)(a)(i) or (ii) for his subsequent crime.

Section 40:966(A)(1) prohibits possession with intent to distribute an analogue of a Schedule I controlled substance even when the analogue is not itself listed in Schedule I.

State v. Beaudette · filed 2012-07-13(A)(1)

JWH-018 was listed in Schedule I at the time the instant crimes were allegedly committed, but JWH-210, the compound possessed by relator, was not listed in Schedule I. However, under La. R.S. 40:966, it was unlawful to possess with the intent to distribute analogues of controlled dangerous substances listed in Schedule I.

Section 40:966(A), read with Louisiana’s Schedule I list, covered synthetic cannabinoids that the federal drug schedule did not cover.

United States v. Edmond · filed 2025-07-18(A)

In contrast, La. R.S. § 40:964, taken with La. R.S. § 40:966(A), prohibited 28 different chemical compounds and chemical groups. ... Accordingly, under a categorical approach, the district court clearly and obviously erred in finding that this offense was a sufficient predicate for application of the career offender enhancement.

Section 40:966(C) requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed heroin; actual or constructive possession suffices.

State v. Clements · filed 2016-05-04(C)

To sustain a conviction under La. R.S. 40:966 C, the prosecution must prove that the defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed heroin.

Section 40:966(C) prohibits knowing or intentional possession of marijuana; a possession-with-intent verdict can support a possession conviction when intent to distribute was not proved.

State of Louisiana v. Solomon Burke Guillory, Jr. · filed 2021-05-12(C)

The verdict of guilty of possession with intent to distribute marijuana explicitly reflects the finding that Defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed marijuana, and Defendant has not challenged that finding. See State v. Fobb, 11-1434 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/6/12), 91 So.3d 1235. Thus, we enter a verdict of guilty of possession of marijuana and remand for sentencing thereon.

Section 40:966(C) requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed marijuana; constructive possession can satisfy the possession element.

State v. Gayton · filed 2015-01-28(C)

To support a conviction for possession of any illicit substance or object, the district attorney must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in possession of the substance or object and that he knowingly or intentionally possessed it. ... The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to sustain his convictions for attempted possession of cocaine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia.

Section 40:966(B)(3) requires a fine of not more than $50,000 for distributing marijuana; omitting the fine makes the sentence illegally lenient.

State v. Jones · filed 2013-11-20(B)(3)

Second, the trial court failed to impose a fine of not more than $50,000 for the sentence for distribution of marijuana, as required by La. R.S. 40:966(B)(3), and, therefore, imposed an illegally lenient sentence.

Section 40:966(B)(3) requires a fine of not more than $50,000 for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

State v. Morton · filed 2014-12-16(B)(3)

Finally, on count three, the trial court failed to impose the mandatory fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars as required by La. R.S. 40:966(B)(3) for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of La. R.S. 40:966(A).

Section 40:966(B)(3) permits a fine of up to $50,000 for distributing marijuana; imposing no fine amounts to a $0 fine.

State v. Jones · filed 2014-01-15(B)(3)

Also, La. R.S. 40:966(B)(3), the sentence for distribution of marijuana requires the imposition of a fine of "not more than" $50,000; in this case, the trial court imposed no fine. When a trial court does not impose a fine in a situation where the statute authorizes a fine of “not more than” an amount, it impliedly imposes a fine of $0 and is not an error patent.

Section 40:966(B)(3) requires five to thirty years at hard labor and a fine of no more than $50,000 for possession with intent to distribute synthetic marijuana.

State v. Moran · filed 2014-10-01(B)(3)

The defendant pled pursuant to the provision of La. R.S. 40:966(B)(3), which requires that the trial court sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment at hárd labor for not less than five nor more than thirty years and impose a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars when sentencing a person convicted of possession with intent to distribute synthetic marijuana. The trial court imposed an illegally lenient sentence by ^failing to assess the mandatory fine.

Section 40:966(B)(3) requires a fine for possession with intent to distribute marijuana; a sentence omitting the fine is illegally lenient.

State v. Thomas · filed 2015-05-20(B)(3)

The trial court failed to impose the mandatory fine, as required by La. R.S. 40:966(B)(3); therefore, the defendants’ sentences were illegally lenient. Accordingly, the case is remanded for imposition of appropriate fines relative to Patin and Thomas’s sentences on Count I.

Section 40:966 requires a mandatory fine for the marijuana offense, but an omitted fine in a vacated original sentence requires no correction.

State v. Martin · filed 2015-12-23(B)(3)

First, the transcript from defendant’s original sentencing does not reflect that the trial court imposed the mandatory fine. However, the trial .court vacated the original sentence imposed in connection with La. R.S.40:966' and properly resen-teneed-defendant pursuant to the habitual offender statute, La. R.S. 15:529,1.

Section 40:966(B)(3) requires a fine for each count of marijuana distribution, though an appellate court need not remand solely to impose an omitted fine.

State v. Nixon · filed 2017-05-19(B)(3)

On the other hand, because the penalty provision for distribution of marijuana, La. R.S. 40:966(B)(3), provides for a mandatory fíne, and the penalty provision for distribution of cocaine, La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b), only provides for a discretionary fine, we conclude that the $15,000 fíne was imposed for one of the counts of distribution of marijuana. As to the other count of distribution of marijuana, although the trial court’s failure to impose a mandatory fine results in an illegally lenient sentence, this court is not required to remand for imposition of a mandatory fine.

Section 40:966(B)(3) requires a fine of up to $50,000 for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

State v. Parnell · filed 2018-05-16(B)(3)

La. R.S. 40:966(B)(3) requires a mandatory fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars for a conviction of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Here, neither the minute entries nor the sentencing transcript reflects that a fine was issued to defendant. ... Under the circumstances, we decline to exercise our authority to amend the illegally lenient sentences.

Section 40:966(B)(3) required a fine, capped at $50,000, for possession with intent to distribute marijuana at the time of the offense.

State of Louisiana Versus Hursen A. Patin · filed 2019-11-13(B)(3)

Third, at the time of the offense, a penalty for possession with intent to distribute marijuana carried a mandatory fine of “not more than fifty thousand dollars.” See La. R.S. 40:966(B)(3). The trial court did not impose any fine as part of defendant’s sentence on count two.

Section 40:966(B)(3), as it applied at the time of the offenses, required a fine of not more than $50,000 for each possession-with-intent-to-distribute conviction involving marijuana or a synthetic cannabinoid.

State of Louisiana Versus Jontreal A. Fisher · filed 2020-12-23(B)(3)

With respect to count one (possession with intent to distribute marijuana) and count five (possession with intent to distribute synthetic cannabinoid), the transcript shows that the trial court failed to impose the mandatory fine of not more than $50,000.00 on each count, as was required by La. R.S. 40:966(B)(3) at the time of the offenses.

Section 40:966(A)(1) applies to natural persons charged with possessing marijuana with intent to distribute.

State v. Lee · filed 2016-10-12(A)(1)

Accordingly, Lee, a human being, falls under the category of “person” for the charged offense, La. R.S. 40:966, and was properly prosecuted as such.

Section 40:966(B)(2)(b)’s aggregate-weight threshold includes the as-prepared weight of marijuana-containing gummies and cookies, rather than only the marijuana within them.

State of Louisiana v. Vidrine · filed 2024-11-20(B)(2)(b)

Accordingly, we need not consider the contents of the ashtray if the “as prepared” weights of the gummies and cookies is considered as opposed to only the weight of the marijuana within them. ... Pursuant to La.R.S. 40:966(B)(2)(b), a person convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana with an aggregate weight of two and a half pounds or more shall be imprisoned at hard labor for one to twenty years and liable for a fine of up to $50,000.00. ... The plain wording of the relevant statutes outlined above supports the methodology employed to determine the weight of the products in Defendant’s possession at the time of his arrest.