La. Stat. Ann. § 40:967

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(A) prohibits knowingly or intentionally possessing a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, while subsection (B)(2)(a) provides a one-to-ten-year imprisonment range and possible fine when the aggregate weight is less than twenty-eight grams.

State of Louisiana Versus Eddie J Richards · filed 2024-11-20(A), (B)(2)(a)

A. Manufacture; distribution. Except as authorized by this Part or by Part VII-B of Chapter 5 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally: ... (1) To produce, manufacture, distribute, or dispense or possess with intent to produce, manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analogue classified in Schedule II. ... To prove possession with intent to distribute, the State was required to show defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed the drugs and that he did so with the specific intent to distribute it. See State v. Richardson, 13-886 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/14), 142 So.3d 314, 322, writ denied, 14-1353 (La. 2/13/15), 159 So.3d 461. ... Regarding count four, La. R.S. 40:967(B)(2)(a) states that the penalty for possession with intent to distribute a Schedule II substance with an aggregate weight of less than twenty-eight grams shall be imprisonment, with or without hard labor, for not less than one year nor more than ten years and may include a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars. Defendant received a ten-year sentence on this count.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) large-quantity possession penalties and § 40:967(G) benefit restrictions; revised (D) treats unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a) sets the imprisonment and fine for possessing more than 28 but less than 200 grams of cocaine, while Section G makes the defendant ineligible for parole only until the minimum ten-year term is served.

State v. Toca · filed 2000-09-06(F)(1)(a)

La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(a) provides that one convicted of possession of more than twenty-eight grams, but less than two hundred grams, of cocaine shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than sixty years and to payment of a fine of not less than $50,000 and not more than $150,000. Section G provides that with respect to any person to whom the provisions of Section F apply, the sentence shall not be suspended and the defendant shall not be eligible for parole or probation prior to serving the minimum sentence. La. R.S. 15:529.1(G) provides that any sentence shall be without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence. Thus, the sentence imposed on defendant improperly provides that the entire sentence is to be without benefit of parole when parole ineligibility should have been limited to the first ten years of the sentence.

Law changed since Acts 2001, No. 403 reduced the former cocaine-distribution minimum and benefit restriction from five years to two; Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific § 40:967(B) penalties with aggregate-weight tiers. Earlier offenses may still use the applicable former rule, subject to La. R.S. 15:308(B).

Section 40:967(B)(4)(a) requires only the first five years of a sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute to be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Rutland · filed 2002-10-02(B)(4)(a)

For the foregoing reasons, we amend the defendant’s sentence to provide that only the first five years of the fifteen-year sentence shall be served without benefit of parole and to delete the provision of the sentence denying the defendant eligibility for good time credit.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) provides that a cocaine-distribution sentence carries two to thirty years at hard labor, with only the first two years without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Coleman · filed 2007-01-24(B)(4)(b)

La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b), which pertains to distribution of cocaine, provides for a term of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than two years nor more than thirty years, with the first two years of said sentence being without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Thus, after adjudicating the defender a second felony offender, the trial court was required to impose only two years of the 15-year sentence without benefit of parole. Accordingly, we amend the defendant's sentence to provide that only the first two years are to be served without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence; the rest of the sentence is to be served without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the covered drug convictions, the first two years of the sentence are subject to a parole-eligibility restriction, and that restriction is deemed imposed even if the trial court did not state it.

State v. Harvey · filed 2009-05-13

A review of the record fails to show that the district court restricted parole eligibility for the first two years of appellant’s sentences as required by La. R.S. 40:967 and La. R.S. 15:529.1.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires that only the first two years of a sentence for cocaine distribution be served without benefit of parole.

State of Louisiana v. Ballard · filed 2010-12-08(B)(4)(b)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:967 (B)(4)(b) provides only the first two years of a sentence imposed for distribution of cocaine to be served without the benefit of parole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967 requires parole eligibility to be restricted for the first two years of the sentence, and that restriction is deemed imposed even when the trial court does not delineate it.

State v. Simmons · filed 2011-05-18

A review of the record fails to show that the district court restricted parole eligibility for the first two years of Simmons’ sentences as required by La. R.S. 40:967. However, as per La. R.S. 15:301.1 A and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with the restriction, even in the absence of the trial court’s failure to delineate the restriction. Thus, no need exists for this court to correct the sentence.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) large-quantity possession penalties and § 40:967(G) benefit restrictions; revised (D) treats unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Subsection (F)(l)(a) sets the penalty for possessing 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams of cocaine, while subsection (G) bars suspension, deferral, probation, or parole until the minimum sentence under subsection F has been served; it does not make an entire enhanced sentence parole-ineligible.

State v. Wallace · filed 2011-08-10(F)(l)(a) (G)

La. R.S. 40:967(F)(l)(a) provides: ... (a) Any person who knowingly or intentionally possesses twenty-eight grams or more, but less than two hundred grams, of cocaine or of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine or of its analogues as provided in Schedule 11(A)(4) of R.S. 40:964, shall be sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment at hard labor of not less than five years, nor more than thirty years, and to pay a fine of not less than fifty thousand dollars, nor more than one hundred fifty thousand dollars. ... La. R.S. 40:967(G), however, provides: ... G. With respect to any person to whom the provisions of Subsection F are applicable, the adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence shall not be suspended, deferred, or withheld, nor shall such person be eligible for probation or parole prior to serving the minimum sentences provided by Subsection F. ... The potential sentence for a basic violation of La. R.S. 40:967(F)(l)(a) is from 10 to 30 years at hard labor. By operation of the applicable habitual offender law, the enhanced sentence must be for a term of at least 20 years but not more than 60 years at hard labor, without benefits only for the first five years. ... The district court was without authority to order that Young’s entire sentence be served without benefit of parole. Accordingly, this court amends Young’s sentence to maintain the 50 years at hard labor, but requiring only the first five years to be served without benefit of suspension of sentence, probation, or parole.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) makes a defendant eligible for parole after serving the first two years of the sentence.

State v. Leonard · filed 2011-11-15(B)(4)(b)

Because La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) allows for parole eligibility after the first two years, and La. R.S. 15:529.1(G) prohibits only “probation or suspension of sentence” for the entire sentence, relator’s sentence should not prohibit parole eligibility after the first two years.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967 requires the first two years of the sentence to be served without parole.

State v. Denson · filed 2012-01-25

Regarding the second potential error patent, La. R.S. 40:967 requires that the first two years of appellant’s sentence be served -without the benefit of parole. In this case the district court failed to restrict parole eligibility; however, La. R.S. 15:301.1(A) self-activates the correction of this error and eliminates the need to remand for a ministerial correction of the *1187sentence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For possession with intent to distribute cocaine, only the first two years of the sentence must be served without parole.

State v. Williams · filed 2016-09-28(B)(4)(b)

The statute at issue, La.R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b), requires that only the first two years of the sentence to be served without the benefit of parole.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) large-quantity possession penalties and § 40:967(G) benefit restrictions; revised (D) treats unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a) applies to possession of 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams of cocaine and requires a mandatory fine of $50,000 to $150,000.

State of Louisiana v. Von Ross · filed 2015-10-07(F)(1)(a)

First, the trial court did not impose a mandatory fine of not less than $50,000.00 nor more than $150,000.00 for the defendant‘s conviction of possession of 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams of cocaine as required by La.R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a) requires a mandatory fine of $50,000 to $100,000 for possessing 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams of cocaine.

State v. Patterson · filed 2010-05-12(F)(1)

This court has decided that the failure to impose a mandatory fine requires that the matter be remanded for the imposition of that fine.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires a $50,000 fine for the cocaine-distribution offense at issue.

State v. Williams · filed 1999-02-19(B)(4)(b)

In its response brief, the state notes that defendant's sentence was illegally lenient in that it did not include the mandatory $50,000 fine required in cases such as the present one. See La.R.S. 40:967 B(4)(b) and 40:981.3 E. The state requests that this case be remanded to the trial court for correction of the illegal sentence. While we agree that the sentence is illegally lenient, we cannot correct the sentence, nor grant the state's request for remand, since the state has not appealed, filed an application for review of an illegal sentence, or filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) large-quantity possession penalties and § 40:967(G) benefit restrictions; revised (D) treats unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(F) requires a mandatory fine for possession of cocaine between 28 and 199 grams, but failure to impose that fine makes the sentence illegally lenient without making the plea bargain an absolute nullity.

State v. Campbell · filed 2009-05-26(F)

Count two, possession of cocaine between 28 and 199 grams, mandates a sentence of not less than five years nor ... more than thirty years at hard labor, and a fine of not less than between $50,000 and $150,000. ... |flWe, therefore, hold that not every illegally lenient sentence imposed pursuant to a plea bargain constitutes an absolute nullity. In the matter before us, where the sentence is illegally lenient due to the failure to impose a mandatory fine, we do not find the plea bargain to be an absolute nullity.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For possession of more than 28 grams and less than 200 grams of cocaine, § 40:967 requires a minimum fine of $50,000.

State v. Legett · filed 2002-05-22

However, the same cannot be said for the trial court’s failure to assess a minimum fine of $50,000.00 as required by La. R.S. 40:967.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) and (G); the current statute uses § 40:967(D) for unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams. The cited former provision applies only to older offenses.

Section 40:967(C) and (F)(1)(c) require only general criminal intent for possession of 400 grams or more of cocaine, and constructive possession may be established through dominion and control rather than actual physical possession.

State v. Odle · filed 2002-11-13(C), (F)(1)(c)

Pursuant to La.R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(c), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed 400 grams or more of cocaine. ... A person may be in constructive possession of the substance, even though not in physical possession, if it is subject to his dominion and control. ... In order to convict a person on the basis of constructive possession, something more than mere presence in the area where the drug is found must be shown.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) large-quantity possession penalties and § 40:967(G) benefit restrictions; revised (D) treats unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(b) requires a conviction to result in both imprisonment and a mandatory fine of $100,000 to $350,000, and an omitted fine requires remand for its imposition.

State v. Williams · filed 2003-10-06(F)(1)(b)

The trial court sentenced Mr. Williams under La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(b) only to imprisonment. However, La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(b) provides that a person convicted of the offense shall be sentenced to imprisonment and shall be fined "not less than one hundred thousand dollars, nor more than three hundred fifty thousand dollars." ... In Legett, we held that the failure to impose the mandatory fine under La. R.S. 40:967 required we remand the matter for the imposition of that fine. ... Following those cases, we remand this case to the trial court for the imposition of the mandatory fine.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(b) requires a person convicted of possessing 200 grams or more but less than 400 grams of cocaine to receive ten to thirty years at hard labor and a fine of $100,000 to $350,000.

State v. August · filed 2004-04-07(F)(1)(b)

Louisiana Revised Statute 40:967(F)(1)(b) mandates the imposition of a fine of not less than $100,000 nor more than $350,000, in addition to imprisonment; in the matter on appeal, the defendant received a term of thirty years' imprisonment but no fine.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a) mandates a fine of $50,000.00 to $150,000.00 for possessing twenty-eight grams but less than two hundred grams of cocaine.

State of Louisiana v. Lamar Pierce Phillips · filed 2004-11-10(F)(1)(a)

The Defendant did not receive a fine although one is mandated by the penalty provision of La.R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(a). That provision mandates a fine of not less than $50,000.00 nor more than $150,000.00. Thus, the Defendant received an illegally lenient sentence for the possession of twenty-eight grams but less than two hundred grams of cocaine.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(c) requires a $250,000–$600,000 fine for knowingly or intentionally possessing 400 grams or more of cocaine; indigency does not excuse the fine, but no jail term may be imposed for nonpayment.

State of Louisiana v. Major III · filed 2005-03-02(F)(1)(c)

The trial court did not impose a fine although one is mandated by statute. Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:967(F)(1)(c) requires the imposition of a fine of not less than $250,000.00 or more than $600,000.00. ... Following Dickerson, we find that the trial court in the present case, even in light of its determination that Major was indigent, should have imposed the mandatory fine but without imposing default time under La.Code Crim.P. art. 884. ... If, upon remand, the trial court finds that Major is indigent, it is to impose the mandatory fine without ordering default time in the event of nonpayment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a) requires a $50,000-to-$150,000 fine for possessing 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams of cocaine, although an appellate court may decline to correct the omission when the State did not raise it.

State v. Evans · filed 2008-10-31(F)(1)(a)

The trial court failed to impose the mandatory fine of not less than fifty thousand dollars, nor more than one hundred fifty thousand dollars. See La. R.S. 40:967 F(1)(a).[6] Although the failure to impose the fine is error under La.C.Cr.P. art. 920(2), it certainly is not inherently prejudicial to the defendant. Because the trial court's failure to impose the fine was not raised by the State in either the trial court or on appeal, we are not required to take any action. As such, we decline to correct the illegally lenient sentence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(c) requires a mandatory fine of not less than $250,000.00 and not more than $600,000.00.

State v. Sutton · filed 2016-12-14(F)(1)(c)

La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(c) provides for a mandatory fine of not less than $250,000.00 and not more than $600,000.00.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 (effective Aug. 1, 2017) repealed the former large-quantity possession penalties in § 40:967(F) and the associated benefit restriction in (G); revised § 40:967(D) treats unauthorized possession of 28 grams or more as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a) requires a fine of $50,000 to $150,000 for knowing possession of 28 to under 200 grams of cocaine; omitting the fine makes the sentence illegally lenient.

State v. Jacobs · filed 2009-03-04(F)(1)(a)

The trial court failed to impose a mandatory fine. Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:967(F)(1)(a) provides that: Any person who knowingly or intentionally possesses twenty-eight grams or more, but less than two hundred grams, of cocaine or of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine or of its analogues as provided in Schedule II(A)(4) of R.S. 40:964, shall be sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment at hard labor of not less than five years, nor more than thirty years, and to pay a fine of not less than fifty thousand dollars, nor more than one hundred fifty thousand dollars. The trial court’s failure to impose a mandatory fine renders Defendant’s sentence illegally lenient.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(1) applies to cocaine because cocaine is a Schedule II narcotic drug, carrying a penalty of five to thirty years’ imprisonment and a possible fine; the lesser penalty in § 40:967(B)(4) does not apply.

State v. Brady · filed 1999-03-16(B)(1), (B)(4)

However, on further review, we find that La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4) as previously relied upon is not applicable to the instant case, and the sentence imposed was not illegal. We erred in determining otherwise. In count two of the information, defendants were convicted of attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine. At the time of their arrests in 1995, La. R.S. 40:967(B)(1) provided the following penalty provision: (1) A substance classified in Schedule II which is a narcotic drug, or which is an amphetamine or methamphetamine, shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than five years nor more than thirty years; and may, in addition, be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars. Cocaine is included as a "narcotic drug" in La. R.S. 40:961(26), and 40:967(B)(1) applies to the facts of this case. The ten year sentence imposed by the trial judge is therefore legal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For distribution of cocaine, the first two years of the sentence must be served without probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Garner · filed 2011-11-02(B)(4)(b)

Our error patent review discloses that the trial court failed to order that the first two years of this sentence be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, as required by La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b).

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) large-quantity possession penalties and § 40:967(G) benefit restrictions; revised (D) treats unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Subsection (F)(1)(a) requires a five-to-thirty-year hard-labor sentence and a $50,000-to-$150,000 fine for the specified cocaine quantity, while subsection (G) bars suspension, deferral, withholding, probation, or parole before the minimum sentence is served.

State v. Harrell · filed 2010-05-11(F)(1)(a), (G)

The sentencing provision, La. R.S. 40:967(F)(l)(a) states: [The defendant] shall be sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment at hard labor of not less than five years, nor more than thirty years, and to pay a fine of not less than fifty thousand dollars, nor more than one hundred fifty thousand dollars. ... In addition, La. R.S. 40:967(G) states: [T]he adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence shall not be suspended, deferred, or withheld, nor shall such person be eligible for probation or parole prior to serving the minimum sentences provided by Subsection F. ... The trial court should have informed the defendant that at least five years of his sentence on Count 4 must be served without benefit of probation or parole. ... For the reasons described above addressing the trial court’s failure to impose mandatory statutory benefits on Count 3, we find that the trial court’s failure to impose a sentence without mandatory statutory benefits on Count 4 did not render the defendant’s plea unknowing and involuntary.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires the first two years of the sentence to be served without the benefit of parole.

State v. NIONS · filed 2007-02-07(B)(4)(b)

However, the court failed to further order that the first two years be served without the benefit of parole as required by La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b). However, as per La. R.S. 15:301.1A and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with this restriction even in the absence of the trial court's failure to delineate it. Thus, there is no need for this Court to correct the sentence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires a person convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute to receive 2 to 30 years at hard labor, with the first two years served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Small · filed 2006-06-28B(4)(b)

However, our review of the record reveals that the sentence is illegally lenient. The statute of conviction, La. R.S. 40:967 B(4)(b), provides that a person convicted thereof shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than 2 years nor more than 30 years, “with the first two years of said sentence being without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.” The trial court neglected to direct that any portion of the sentence be served without benefits. The trial court’s failure to state that the first 2 years of this sentence shall be served without benefits will be automatically corrected by operation of La. R.S. 15:301.1.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For cocaine distribution, only the first two years of the sentence are to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. LANDOR · filed 2009-05-13(B)(4)(b)

We note that, as the defendant correctly asserts, the original sentence of fifteen years at hard labor, the first ten years of the sentence without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, imposed an illegal condition. Under La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b), only the first two years of the sentence are to be without benefits.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 (effective Aug. 1, 2017) repealed the former large-quantity possession penalties in § 40:967(F) and the associated benefit restriction in (G); revised § 40:967(D) treats unauthorized possession of 28 grams or more as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

For possessing 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams of cocaine, § 40:967(F)(1)(a) requires a $50,000-to-$150,000 fine, and § 40:967(G) bars suspending the sentence.

State v. Sims · filed 2005-10-26(F)(1)(a), (G)

The agreed-upon sentence in this case is illegally lenient since the fine was suspended. La. R.S. 40:967 provides, in pertinent part: ... F. Other penalties for possession. ... (1) Except as otherwise authorized in this Part: ... (a) Any person who knowingly or intentionally possesses twenty-eight grams or more, but less than two hundred grams, of cocaine or of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine or of its analogues as provided in Schedule II(A)(4) of R.S. 40:964, shall be sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment at hard labor of not less than five years, nor more than thirty years, and to pay a fine of not less than fifty thousand dollars, nor more than one hundred fifty thousand dollars. ... G. With respect to any person to whom the provisions of Subsection F are applicable, the adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence shall not be suspended, deferred, or withheld, nor shall such person be eligible for probation or parole prior to serving the minimum sentences provided by Subsection F. ... Since the suspension of this fine was part of the plea bargain and because the trial court specifically found Defendant to be indigent, it is therefore a viable option to decline to impose the fine in this case and we will not disturb the suspension of the fine in this case.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires a fine and requires the first two years of imprisonment to be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Williams · filed 2005-03-29(B)(4)(b)

As the State points out, La.R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) provides for imposition of a fine and also requires that the first two years of the sentence shall be without benefit of parole, as well as without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence.

Law changed since Acts 2001, No. 403 reduced the former cocaine-distribution minimum and benefit restriction from five years to two; Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific § 40:967(B) penalties with aggregate-weight tiers. Earlier offenses may still use the applicable former rule, subject to La. R.S. 15:308(B).

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires the first five years of the sentence to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Curtis · filed 1999-06-01(B)(4)(b)

The record also reflects that the sentence is illegally lenient for two reasons. The trial judge failed to require that the sentence be served without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence for the first 5 years, as required by La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b).

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967 permits only the first two years of the sentence to be served without benefits.

State v. Winn · filed 2003-05-14

However, the statute of conviction, as amended by Acts 2001, No. 403, effective June 15, 2001, allows only two years to be without benefits. Accordingly, this court must amend the sentence to provide for the denial of benefits as to the first two years only.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires a two-year restriction on parole for the applicable cocaine-distribution sentence; if the sentencing court omits it, the restriction applies by operation of law.

State v. Johnson · filed 2003-12-09(B)(4)(b)

Lastly, defendant's multiple offender sentence is illegally lenient because the trial judge did not impose the two-year restriction on parole required by the reference statute, La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b). State v. Tate, 99-1483 (La.11/24/99), 747 So.2d 519, 520. However, according to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, 799, this error does not require any action by this Court because La. R.S. 15:301.1(C), imposes the restrictions by operation of law.

Law changed since Acts 2001, No. 403 reduced the former cocaine-distribution minimum and benefit restriction from five years to two; Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific § 40:967(B) penalties with aggregate-weight tiers. Earlier offenses may still use the applicable former rule, subject to La. R.S. 15:308(B).

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires a cocaine-distribution sentence to include five years without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, and that restriction applies to a habitual-offender sentence based on the underlying offense.

State v. Converse · filed 2003-12-30(B)(4)(b)

The judge ordered that defendant's habitual offender sentence be served without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence, as provided in La. R.S. 15:529.1(G), but did not impose the additional restriction of parole on the minimum sentence as prescribed by the underlying statute. Defendant's sentence is, therefore, illegally lenient.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

For distribution of cocaine under § 40:967(A), the sentence ranges from two to thirty years, with only the first two years imposed without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Darensbourg · filed 2004-03-30(B)(4)(b)

The penalty for a violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A) ranges from two to thirty years of imprisonment, but only the first two years is without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b). Thus, the imposition of the entire sentence without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence was illegal.

Law changed since Acts 2001, No. 403 reduced the former cocaine-distribution minimum and benefit restriction from five years to two; Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific § 40:967(B) penalties with aggregate-weight tiers. Earlier offenses may still use the applicable former rule, subject to La. R.S. 15:308(B).

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires the sentence to be served without parole for five years, while the restrictions on probation and suspension apply to the sentence as specified by the statute.

State v. Sanders · filed 2004-05-14(B)(4)(b)

Granted. The defendant's sentence of 15 years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence is amended to provide that the defendant shall serve a term of 15 years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence, and without benefit of parole for a period of five years. See La.R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) (1997 La. Acts 1284); La.R.S. 15:529.1(G). In cases in which the sentencing error made by the trial court does not involve the omission of a restrictive term specified by the legislature as part of the sentence but the imposition of limits beyond what the legislature has authorized in the sentencing statute(s), an appellate court should not rely on La.R.S. 15:301.1(A) to correct the error as a matter of law but should correct the sentence on its own authority under La.C.Cr.P. art. 882 to correct an illegal sentence "at any time".

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires the first five years of the sentence to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Alexander · filed 2004-05-19(B)(4)(b)

Furthermore, La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b), as it existed at the time the offense was committed, required that the first five years of the sentence be imposed without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. On remand, the defendant's sentence should be applied in conformity with the provisions La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b).

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) large-quantity possession penalties and § 40:967(G) benefit restrictions; revised (D) treats unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967 applies the sentencing version in effect when the offense was committed and requires the applicable minimum term for possessing 400 grams or more of cocaine to be served without parole.

State of Louisiana v. Ennis · filed 2004-07-07(F)(1)(c) and (G)

However, the trial court imposed sentence under the version of La.R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(c) in effect at the time of trial rather than at the time of the offense. At the time of the offense, the statute provided for a minimum term of imprisonment of thirty years at hard labor, with a maximum term of sixty years. However, by the time of trial, the legislature had amended the statute, decreasing the minimum sentence to fifteen years at hard labor with a maximum of thirty years. ... Louisiana Revised Statute 40:967(G) mandates that the minimum sentence for possession of cocaine weighing 400 grams or more be served without benefit of parole. However, since the minimum sentence at the time of the offense was thirty years, Mr. Ennis’ sentence is illegally lenient, as all thirty years should be without benefit of parole. Because the term of parole ineligibility required in the present case is mandatory, leaving no discretion to the trial court, we need not remand for sentencing. Rather, we amend the sentence to reflect that the thirty years are without benefit of parole.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires the specified part of a second-offense cocaine-distribution sentence to be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, and the restriction applies by operation of law.

State of Louisiana v. Colar · filed 2005-02-02(B)(4)(b)

La.R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires such a restriction. ... Instead, the judge’s sentence is deemed to include those restrictions by operation of law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires the first two years of an enhanced cocaine-distribution sentence to be served without parole, probation, or suspension.

State v. Moore · filed 2007-04-11(B)(4)(b)

The State correctly notes in its brief that the trial court did not impose the first two years of the enhanced sentence without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension as required by the underlying statutes, La.R.S. 40:981.3(E) and La.R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b).

Law changed since Acts 2001, No. 403 reduced the former cocaine-distribution minimum and benefit restriction from five years to two; Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific § 40:967(B) penalties with aggregate-weight tiers. Earlier offenses may still use the applicable former rule, subject to La. R.S. 15:308(B).

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires the first five years of the sentence to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, and that restriction is self-activating.

State v. Evans · filed 2009-12-29(B)(4)(b)

In March 2001, when the defendant committed the underlying offense, La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) provided that on conviction of possession with intent to distribute cocaine conviction, the defendant shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than five years nor more than thirty years, with the first five years of the sentence being without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The statute provided for discretionary imposition of a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars. Thus, as a second felony offender, the defendant faced a possible sentencing range of 15 to 60 years imprisonment. La. R.S. 15:529.1(A)(l)(a). The defendant received a 45-year sentence. ... Hence, the trial court imposed an illegally lenient enhanced sentence, because he restricted “benefits” for only five years, but no corrective action is required. Under La. R.S. 15:301.1 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, a statute’s requirement that a defendant be sentenced without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence is self-activating. State v. Stokes, 02-339, p. 4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/16/02), 831 So.2d 354, 357, writ denied, 03-2750 (La.11/8/04), 885 So.2d 1127.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b)'s restriction that the sentence be imposed without benefit of probation or suspension is self-correcting, so an illegally lenient sentence omitting that restriction requires no appellate action.

State v. Allen · filed 2013-10-09(B)(4)(b)

A review of the record reveals an error patent with respect to sentencing in that the sentence was illegally lenient because the trial court failed to impose the sentence without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence. With regard to illegally lenient sentences, this Court has recognized that the statute is self-correcting. State v. Tillman, 10-1717, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/28/11), 74 So.3d 761, 763 (citing State v. Phillips, 03-0304 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/23/03), 853 So.2d 675). Accordingly, this Court need take no action with regard to the trial court’s failure to impose the sentence without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 (effective Aug. 1, 2017) replaced this pre-2017 Schedule II distribution penalty with aggregate-weight ranges in § 40:967(B) and removed the former general two-year benefit restriction; earlier offenses may still use the prior penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) restricts parole, probation, and suspension of sentence for only the first two years of a sentence for distribution of cocaine.

State v. Durall · filed 2016-05-12(B)(4)(b)

The underlying offense of distribution of cocaine only provides for a restriction of parole, probation, of* suspension of sentence for the first two years. La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b). ... Therefore, we amend defendant’s sentence to eliminate the restriction on parole for the entire 30-year sentence and provide that only the first two years of defendant’s sentence are without the benefit of parole. The entire 30-year sentence remains without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

For a conviction under § 40:967(B)(4)(b), the first two years of the sentence must be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, and that restriction is self-activating.

State v. Williams · filed 2017-08-30(B)(4)(b)

Sentencing under La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) and La. R.S. 40:979(A) require “the first two years” of the sentence to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. In this case, when the trial judge sentenced Defendant on count two, he did not specify that the first two years of Defendant’s 15-year sentence was to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Thus, Defendant received an illegally lenient sentence. However, the tidal court’s failure to state this requirement at sentencing need not be corrected on remand because under State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La. 11/29/01); 800 So.2d 790, 799 and La. R.S. 15:301.1 (A), the “without benefits” provision is self-activating.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

At the time of the offense, Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) restricted sentencing benefits only for the first two years of the sentence.

State v. Luckett · filed 2017-12-27(B)(4)(b)

At the time of the offense, the sentencing provisions under La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) only provided for a restriction of benefits for the first two years of the sentence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the offense at issue, the first two years of the sentence must be served without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Simmons · filed 2017-12-27(B)(4)(b)

At the time of the underlying offense on count three (November 15, 2014), La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) required the first two years of defendant's sentence to be without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) large-quantity possession penalties and § 40:967(G) benefit restrictions; revised (D) treats unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a) sets a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence and a mandatory fine for possessing more than twenty-eight but less than two hundred grams of cocaine, while subsection (G) restricts suspension, parole, and probation before the minimum is served, subject to a constitutionally required departure when the minimum is excessive under Dorthey.

State v. Dupart · filed 2000-05-10(F)(1)(a), (G)

La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(a) provides that one convicted of possession of more than twenty-eight grams, but less than two hundred grams, of cocaine shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than sixty years and to payment of a fine of not less than $50,000 and not more |athan $150,000. ... Therefore, we find that the trial judge was wrong in concluding that he could not deviate from the mandatory minimum sentence under Dorthey. Accordingly, this ease will be remanded to the trial court to determine whether the mandatory minimum sentence would be excessive under Dorthey. ... Also, La. R.S. 40:967(G) provides that with respect to any person to whom the provisions of Section F apply, the sentence shall not be suspended and the defendant shall not be eligible for parole or probation prior to serving the minimum sentence.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

For a second offender convicted of cocaine distribution, the applicable sentencing scheme requires at least fifteen years at hard labor, with the first two years served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, absent clear and convincing proof that the sentence is constitutionally excessive.

State v. Ricks · filed 2002-07-10(B)(4)(b)

The State argues that the trial court erred by failing to impose the statutory minimum sentence under La. R.S. 15:529.1 and La. R.S. 40:967, fifteen years at hard labor with the first two years to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The State correctly argues that the statutory minimum is fifteen years at hard labor with the first two years to be served without benefit of parole, probation,- or suspension of sentence. ... In light of State v. Lindsey, 770 So.2d at 339, the trial court erred by sentencing the defendant below the statutorily mandated fifteen years at hard labor, the first two years to be served without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (B) requires a mandatory minimum five-year term without eligibility for probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Comena · filed 2003-03-19(B)

The version of La. R.S. 40:967(B) that was in effect at the time the crime was committed required that a defendant serve a mandatory minimum term of five years without eligibility for probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 (effective Aug. 1, 2017) repealed the former large-quantity possession penalties in § 40:967(F) and the associated benefit restriction in (G); revised § 40:967(D) treats unauthorized possession of 28 grams or more as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a) sets a five-year minimum prison term for possession of more than twenty-eight but less than two hundred grams of cocaine, and that mandatory minimum was not excessive.

State v. Milligan · filed 2008-11-05(F)(1)(a)

The Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine in an amount greater than twenty-eight grams but less than two hundred grams. The penalty range for this offense is a term of imprisonment of not less than five years, nor more than thirty years, and a fine of not less than fifty thousand dollars, nor more than one hundred fifty thousand dollars. La.R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(a). The Defendant was sentenced to serve five years, the minimum sentence. "A minimum sentence compelled by Louisiana law is presumed not to be excessive or violative of the guidelines." State v. Drane, 36,230, p. 11 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/18/02), 828 So.2d 107, 114, writ denied, 02-2619 (La. 3/28/03), 840 So.2d 566. The record before us is void of any evidence to rebut that presumption. Accordingly, we find the five year minimum sentence imposed in this case is not excessive.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) large-quantity possession penalties and § 40:967(G) benefit restrictions; revised (D) treats unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(G) requires parole ineligibility only for the mandatory minimum term prescribed by § 40:967(F), not for the entire sentence enhanced under the multiple-offender statute.

State v. Tate · filed 1999-11-24(G)

However, La.R.S. 40:967(G) requires that a defendant serve without eligibility for parole the mandatory minimum terms provided by the legislature if convicted of an offense under La.R.S. 40:967(F). In addition, the restrictions on parole eligibility imposed on multiple offender sentences under La.R.S. 15:529.1 "are those called for in the reference statute." ... Because La.R.S. 40:967(G) allows and requires the district judge to deny parole eligibility only for the minimum terms provided by La.R.S. 40:967(F), the district judge erred in denying parole eligibility for the entire second offender term imposed under La.R.S. 15:529.1(A)(1)(a).

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B) required a five-year mandatory minimum sentence without eligibility for parole for the offense at the time it was committed.

State v. Bentley · filed 2003-03-12(B)

La. R.S. 40:967(B) as it existed at the time the offense was committed, required that a defendant serve the mandatory minimum term of five years without eligibility for parole.

Law changed since Acts 2001, No. 403 reduced the former cocaine-distribution minimum and benefit restriction from five years to two; Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific § 40:967(B) penalties with aggregate-weight tiers. Earlier offenses may still use the applicable former rule, subject to La. R.S. 15:308(B).

At the time of the offense, subsection (B)(4)(b) required the first five years of a cocaine-distribution sentence to be without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Young · filed 2003-01-22(B)(4)(b)

In this case, the sentencing provision for the underlying conviction is La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b), which provided for a five year restriction on parole at the time of the offense.[2] The trial court erred insofar as it restricted Mr. Young's parole ineligibility beyond the first five years of his sentence.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) large-quantity possession penalties and § 40:967(G) benefit restrictions; revised (D) treats unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(G) permits and requires a judge to deny parole eligibility only for the minimum term provided by § 40:967(F), not for an entire enhanced sentence.

State v. Knight · filed 2002-10-30(G)

Because La.R.S. 40:967(G) allows and requires the district judge to deny parole eligibility only for the minimum terms provided by La.R.S. 40:967(F), the district judge erred in denying parole eligibility for the entire second offender term imposed under La.R.S. 15:529.1(A)(l)(a).

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties and benefit restrictions in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(4) requires a portion of sentences for cocaine manufacturing and possession with intent to distribute cocaine to be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Watson · filed 2013-05-15(B)(4)

We affirm both convictions but vacate the sentences and remand, directing the trial court to affix a portion of each sentence to be served without benefits.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b)'s two-year parole restriction is self-activating even if the sentencing court fails to state it.

State v. Howard · filed 2018-09-21(B)(4)(b)

Thus, the trial court failed to restrict parole on the first two years of the sentence as required by the statute for the underlying offense. See La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) (prior to amendment by 2017 La. Acts No. 281, § 2). However, as State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La. 11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, 798-99 and La. R.S. 15:301.1(A) provide, the "without benefit" provision of La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) is self-activating.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires a cocaine-distribution sentence to be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence during the first two years.

State v. Davis · filed 2017-06-29(B)(4)(b)

Here, the trial judge imposed defendant’s enhanced sentence without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence, pursuant to La. R.S. 15:529.1(G), but did not also restrict parole during the first two years of the sentence as required by La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b). Thus, the trial court imposed an illegally lenient sentence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For distribution of cocaine, the first two years of the sentence must be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Kennon · filed 2016-04-13(B)(4)(b)

La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires that the first two years of a distribution of cocaine conviction be served without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For possession with intent to distribute a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance, only the first two years of the sentence must be served without benefit of parole.

State of Louisiana v. Steve Duane Williams -Aka- Ayaz Sutaria · filed 2016-09-28(B)(4)(b)

The statute at issue, La.R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b), requires that only the first two years of the sentence to be served without the benefit of parole. Accordingly, we amend Defendant’s sentence for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine to require that only the first two years of his sentence be served without the benefit of parole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires the first two years of the sentence for the covered offense to be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Duncan · filed 2017-02-08(B)(4)(b)

However, La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires that the first two years of the sentence shall be without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The restrictions on parole eligibility imposed on habitual offender sentences under La. R.S. 15:529.1 “are those called for in the reference statute.” State v. Esteen, 01-879 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/15/02), 821 So.2d 60, 79, n.24, writ denied, 02-1540 (La. 12/13/02), 831 So.2d 983. Because the underlying offense carries a parole restriction, the habitual offender sentence is to likewise be imposed without parole. See State v. Smith, 09-100 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/25/09), 20 So.3d 501, 509, writ denied, 09-2102 (La. 4/5/10), 31 So.3d 357.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires the first two years of a sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine to be served without benefits.

State v. Thomas · filed 2015-05-20(B)(4)(b)

However, the trial court failed to specify that the first two years of the sentence be served without benefits, as required by La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b).

Law changed since Acts 2001, No. 403 reduced the former cocaine-distribution minimum and benefit restriction from five years to two; Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific § 40:967(B) penalties with aggregate-weight tiers. Earlier offenses may still use the applicable former rule, subject to La. R.S. 15:308(B).

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b), together with the attempt statute, requires the first two and one-half years of a sentence for attempted cocaine distribution to be served without parole, probation, or suspension.

State v. Jordan · filed 1999-11-24(B)(4)(b)

La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) and 14:27 provide the first two and one-half years for the offense she was charged with committing must be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension. The judge did not have authority to suspend or probate this portion of the sentence; and, he should have informed Judith she was required to serve the two and one-half years without benefit of parole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For a conviction under La. Stat. Ann. § 40:967, the first five years of the prison term must be served without benefits; omission of that restriction makes the sentence technically illegally lenient, but La. R.S. 15:301.1 automatically corrects the error.

State v. Klasek · filed 2003-04-11

The sentence technically is illegally lenient because the trial court failed to state that the first five years of the term must be served without benefits, as required by the statute of conviction. This error, however, will automatically be corrected by operation of La. R.S. 15:301.1.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires a sentence of five to thirty years, with the first five years served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Nelson · filed 1999-11-24(B)(4)(b)

According to LSAR.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b), a sentence shall be imposed “for not less than five years nor more than thirty years, with the first five years of said sentence being without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967 requires that the first five years of a sentence for distribution be served without benefit.

State v. Williams · filed 2000-09-27

The sentence for distribution is illegally lenient since it does not provide that the first five years shall be without benefit as required by La. R.S. 40:967. Because the state failed to appeal, this sentencing error may not be corrected by this court, nor may we remand the matter for resentencing.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967 required the first five years of the sentence for the cocaine conviction to be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Williams · filed 2006-05-03(A)

As to the re-sentencing on the second count of which Mr. Williams was convicted, the trial court failed to note that the first five years of the sentence for that conviction must be served without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence as was required by La. R.S. 40:967 as in effect at the time of the commission of the crime. Because more than five years have elapsed since the conviction and original sentencing in this matter, this error is moot.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 (effective Aug. 1, 2017) repealed the former large-quantity possession penalties in § 40:967(F) and the associated benefit restriction in (G); revised § 40:967(D) treats unauthorized possession of 28 grams or more as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(b) sets imprisonment for possessing more than 200 but less than 400 grams of cocaine at 10 to 30 years and mandates a fine of $100,000 to $350,000.

State v. James · filed 2014-02-12(F)(1)(b)

The sentencing range for a defendant found guilty of possession of cocaine in excess of 200 grams, but less than 400 grams, is a term of imprisonment at hard labor of not less than ten years, nor more than thirty years. La. R.S. 40:967(F)(l)(b). The law also mandates that a person so convicted be fined “not less than one hundred thousand dollars, nor more than three hundred fifty thousand dollars.” Id. ... Defendant’s conviction on count two, for violating La. R.S. 40:967(F)(l)(b), should have resulted in him being fined not less than one hundred thousand dollars, nor more than three hundred fifty thousand dollars.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b)'s restrictions on parole, probation, and suspension of sentence apply automatically even when the sentencing court fails to state them.

State v. Celestain · filed 2014-07-30(B)(4)(b)

However, this patent error is self-correcting, as “those restrictions automatically are contained in the sentences whether or not imposed by the sentencing court.”

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) large-quantity possession penalties and § 40:967(G) benefit restrictions; revised (D) treats unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(F) mandates a fine of $50,000 to $150,000 and does not authorize restricting probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Payne · filed 2017-05-17(F)

La. R.S. 40:967(F) provides for a mandatory fine of not less than $50,000.00 nor more than $150,000.00. ... Defendant’s conviction of hpossession of 28 grams or more, but less than 200 grams, of cocaine does not provide for the restriction of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

For a cocaine-distribution offense committed in 2016, § 40:967(B)(4)(b) required a sentence of two to thirty years at hard labor, with the first two years served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence; omission of that restriction made the sentence illegally lenient and required correction of the court minutes.

State v. Williams · filed 2019-04-10(B)(4)(b)

In 2016, when the instant offenses were committed, La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) provided that a person convicted of distribution of cocaine shall be sentenced to not less than two, nor more than 30 years at hard labor, with the first two years to be served without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The statute further provided that the defendant may be ordered to pay a fine of not more than $ 50,000.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 (effective Aug. 1, 2017) repealed the former large-quantity possession penalties in § 40:967(F) and the associated benefit restriction in (G); revised § 40:967(D) treats unauthorized possession of 28 grams or more as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a) sets a five-year minimum sentence for possessing 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams of cocaine, and parole is unavailable until that minimum sentence is served.

State of Louisiana v. McCoy · filed 2007-01-10(F)(1)(a)

We note the minimum sentence under La.R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(a) at the time of the commission of the offense was (and still is) five years. Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:967(G) denies parole eligibility prior to Defendant's service of the minimum sentence. Thus, the trial court should have imposed the sentence without benefit of parole for the first five years; however, this restriction is self-activating pursuant to La.R.S. 15:301.1(A).

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) large-quantity possession penalties and § 40:967(G) benefit restrictions; revised (D) treats unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a) sets a mandatory minimum sentence for possessing more than twenty-eight but less than two hundred grams of cocaine, but the court may review whether that minimum is excessive as applied under State v. Dorthey.

State v. Russell · filed 2000-05-10(F)(1)(a)

La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(a) provides that one convicted of possession of more than twenty-eight grams, but less than two hundred grams, of cocaine shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than sixty years and to payment of a fine of not less than $50,000 and not more than $150,000. ... Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in concluding that Dorthey applied only to sentences under the Habitual Offender Law and that he could not consider whether the mandatory minimum sentence would have been excessive as applied to defendant considering all of the facts and circumstances. This case will be remanded to the trial court to determine whether the mandatory minimum sentence would be excessive under State v. Dorthey.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a) sets a mandatory minimum sentence for possessing more than twenty-eight but less than two hundred grams of cocaine, but the minimum may be reviewed for excessiveness as applied to the defendant under Dorthey.

State v. Russell · filed 2000-05-10(F)(1)(a)

La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(a) provides that one convicted of possession of more than twenty-eight grams, but less than two hundred grams, of cocaine shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than sixty years and to payment of a fine of not less than $50,000 and not more than $150,000.[1] ... Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in concluding that Dorthey applied only to sentences under the Habitual Offender Law and that he could not consider whether the mandatory minimum sentence would have been excessive as applied to defendant considering all of the facts and circumstances. This case will be remanded to the trial court to determine whether the mandatory minimum sentence would be excessive under State v. Dorthey.

Law changed since Acts 2001, No. 403 reduced the former large-quantity cocaine-possession minimum; Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F). Earlier offenses may still use the applicable former penalty.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a)'s ten-year mandatory minimum for possessing more than 28 but less than 200 grams of cocaine may be reduced if imposing it would be constitutionally excessive under Dorthey.

State v. Dupart · filed 2000-05-10(F)(1)(a)

La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(a) provides that one convicted of possession of more than twenty-eight grams, but less than two hundred grams, of cocaine shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than sixty years and to payment of a fine of not less than $50,000 and not more |athan $150,000. ... Therefore, we find that the trial judge was wrong in concluding that he could not deviate from the mandatory minimum sentence under Dorthey. Accordingly, this ease will be remanded to the trial court to determine whether the mandatory minimum sentence would be excessive under Dorthey.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former substance-based § 40:967(C) possession penalties with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(C)(2) authorizes a maximum sentence of five years, with or without hard labor, and a fine of up to $5,000 for possession of methamphetamine.

State v. Strother · filed 2009-11-04(C)(2)

Pursuant to La.R.S. 40:967(C)(2), the maximum possible sentence for possession of methamphetamine is five years, with or without hard labor, and a possible fine of up to $5,000.00. Defendant received the maximum possible sentence but was spared a fine.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(C) sets a maximum sentence of five years, with or without hard labor, and permits a fine for possession of methamphetamine, a Schedule II drug.

State of Louisiana v. Slaydon · filed 2006-02-01(C)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:967(C) states that the penalty for the possession of methamphetamine, a Schedule II drug, is imprisonment with or without hard labor for not more than five years and a possible fine.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(A)(1) makes knowing or intentional distribution of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance unlawful, and subsection (B)(4)(b) provides a two-to-thirty-year sentencing range for distributing cocaine.

State v. Mosby · filed 2014-11-26(A)(1), (B)(4)(b)

La. R.S. 40:967 A(l) punishes the knowing or intentional distribution of controlled dangerous substances statutorily-classified in “Schedule II.” See La. R.S. 40:967 A(l). Cocaine is included in this statutory classification. See La. R.S. 40:964 A(4). “Distribution” includes, inter alia, the “physical delivery” of a controlled dangerous substance to another. See La. R.S. 40:961(14). See also State in the Interest of C.D., 11-1701, p. 10 (La.7/2/12); 93 So.3d 1272, 1278 (quoting State v. Celestine, 95-1393, p. 3 (La.1/26/96); 671 So.2d 896, 897) (“[I]n narcotics cases, distribution is ‘defined as the delivery or transfer of possession and control over controlled substances.’”) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, the essential elements of this offense, which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, are: “(1) delivery or physical transfer; (2) guilty |sknowledge of the controlled dangerous substance at the time of transfer; and (3) the exact identity of the controlled dangerous substance.” State v. Johnson, 01-1455, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/29/02); 825 So.2d 1230, 1233.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 (effective Aug. 1, 2017) repealed the former large-quantity possession penalties in § 40:967(F) and the associated benefit restriction in (G); revised § 40:967(D) treats unauthorized possession of 28 grams or more as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a) sets a five-to-thirty-year hard-labor sentence and a $50,000-to-$150,000 fine for possession of Schedule II CDS over 28 but less than 200 grams.

State v. Egan · filed 2009-12-09(F)(1)(a)

The record reflects that the defendant was originally charged with possession of Schedule II CDS over 28 but less than 200 grams, a violation of La. R.S. 40:967(F)(l)(a). Pursuant to a plea bargain, she pled guilty to the attempted offense. The sentence range for the charged offense is from five years to 30 years imprisonment at hard labor and a fine of not less than $50,000 or more than $150,000. By pleading guilty to the attempted offense, the defendant cut her maximum sentence exposure in half. ... However the attempt charge to which the defendant pled guilty involved La. R.S. 40:967(F)(l)(a), not La. R.S. 40:967(C).

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 repealed former § 40:967(F) and (G); the current statute uses § 40:967(D) for unauthorized possession of at least 28 grams. The cited former provision applies only to older offenses.

Subsection (F)(l)(a) requires proof that a person knowingly or intentionally possessed cocaine and that the cocaine, or a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, weighed 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams.

State v. Davis · filed 2010-01-26(F)(l)(a)

Thus, in order to convict the defendant of possession of 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams of a controlled dangerous substance, to wit, Cocaine, you must find: ... 1. That the defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed cocaine; and ... 2. That the amount of cocaine possessed was 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(F)(1)(a) requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed cocaine weighing between 28 and 200 grams.

State v. Montgomery · filed 2008-01-09(F)(1)(a)

To find one guilty of possession of cocaine in an amount in excess of 28 grams, the state must prove that the defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed cocaine and that the amount of cocaine possessed was between 28 and 200 grams.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967 requires proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed cocaine and that the cocaine weighed between 28 and 200 grams; the required quantity may be established through the evidence presented at trial.

State v. Sims · filed 2009-06-24(C) and (F)(1)(a)

To find one guilty of possession of cocaine in an amount in excess of 28 grams, the state must prove that the defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed cocaine and that the amount of cocaine possessed was between 28 and 200 grams.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 (effective Aug. 1, 2017) repealed the former large-quantity possession penalties in § 40:967(F) and the associated benefit restriction in (G); revised § 40:967(D) treats unauthorized possession of 28 grams or more as a Subsection A violation. Earlier offenses may still use the former provisions.

For possession of 28 to 200 grams of cocaine, § 40:967(F)(1)(a) and (G) require the minimum five-year term to be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Mandigo · filed 2014-02-26(F)(1)(a) and (G)

Regarding the imposition of a sentence without benefit of parole, the conditions imposed on the sentence are those called for in the sentencing provisions for the underlying felony offense. State v. Bruins, 407 So.2d 685 (La.1981); State v. Thurman, supra. The underlying offense here required that the first five years be served without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. See La. R.S. 40:967(F)(l)(a) and (G). The trial court properly ordered that the sentence be imposed without parole for the first five years.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(1) requires a person convicted of distributing methamphetamine to serve the sentence at hard labor.

State v. LeBlanc · filed 2018-01-10(B)(1)

At the time LeBlanc committed the offenses, La. R.S. 40:967(B)(1) provided that any person convicted of distribution of methamphetamine shall serve his or her sentence at hard labor. Furthermore, the plea agreement stated the 18-year sentence was to be served at hard labor. Accordingly, we amend LeBlanc's sentence for distribution of methamphetamine to reflect that it be served at hard labor.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 (effective Aug. 1, 2017) replaced this pre-2017 Schedule II distribution penalty with aggregate-weight ranges in § 40:967(B) and removed the former general two-year benefit restriction; earlier offenses may still use the prior penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(1) sets a sentence of 2 to 30 years at hard labor and a fine of up to $50,000 for distribution of methamphetamine.

State v. Carter · filed 2008-01-09(B)(1)

Distribution of methamphetamine carries a sentence of 2 to 30 years at hard labor and a fine of up to $50,000. La. R.S. 40:967 B(1). At two-thirds of the maximum, Carter's sentence is long but is not out of proportion to the offense and offender.

Law changed since Acts 2017, No. 281 replaced the former drug-specific Schedule II distribution penalties in § 40:967(B) with aggregate-weight ranges; earlier offenses may still use the former penalty.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires a sentence of 2 to 30 years at hard labor, with the first two years served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Cross · filed 2008-03-19(B)(4)(b)

The sentencing provision of the statute of conviction, La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b), provides that a person convicted thereof shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than 2 years nor more than 30 years, with the first 2 years of the sentence to be without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The trial court failed to direct that the first 2 years of the sentence be served without benefit. This failure will be corrected automatically by operation of La. R.S. 15:301.1.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(A) prohibits both distribution and possession with intent to distribute a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance, and those are separate offenses; § 40:967(B)(4)(b) provides the same sentencing range for distribution of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

State v. Augustine · filed 2015-05-14(A), (B)(4)(b)

La. R.S. 40:967(A) makes it unlawful to produce, manufacture, distribute, or dispense a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance (which includes cocaine). ... Although both distribution of cocaine and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine are prohibited by the same statute and subsection, they are separate and distinct crimes. ... Distribution of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine have the same sentencing range. See La. R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(b) requires the first two years of the sentence for the stated drug offense to be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State Of Louisiana v. Benbow · filed 2020-05-12(B)(4)(b)

For a viclation of La. R.S 40:967 (A} (1) the penalty is imprisonment at hard labor for not less than two years nor more than thirty years, with the first two years of said sentence being without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence and a fine of not more than $50,000. See La. R.S. 40:967(B) (4) (ob); see also State v. Payne, 2017-13 (La. App. 5th Cir. 5/17/17), 220 So.3d 889, 897-98. Additionally, La. R.S. 15:529.1(G) provides that the sentence for a second felony habitual offender shall be at hard labor without benefit of probation ocr suspension of sentence; however, it does not restrict parole. The restrictions on parole eligibility imposed on habitual offender sentences under La. R.S. 15:529.1 “are thess called for in the reference statute.” State v. Esteen, 2001-879 (La. App. Sth Cir. 5/15/02), 821 So.2d 60, 79 n.24, writ denied, 2002-1540 (La. 12/13/02), 831 So.2d 983. Thus, the district court erred in restricting parole eligibility for the entirety of relator’s sentences.

Law changed since Acts 2023, No. 399 confined the five-to-forty-year fentanyl distribution tier in § 40:967(B)(4)(a) to an aggregate weight under 28 grams and added higher-weight and repeat-conviction tiers. The charged offenses were alleged to have occurred May 17, 2023, so the quoted range describes the pre-amendment law.

Section 40:967(B)(4)(a) provides a five-to-forty-year prison range and a possible fine of up to $50,000 for fentanyl distribution or possession with intent to distribute, while § 40:967(C)(2) provides a one-to-five-year range for possession of two to less than twenty-eight grams of cocaine or methamphetamine.

State of Louisiana Versus Odell Lee Robertson · filed 2024-10-23(B)(4)(a), (C)(2)

At the time of the charged offenses in counts one and two, the penalty provision for distribution of fentanyl, as well as for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, provided for a term of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than five years nor more than 40 years, and in addition, a possible fine of not more than $50,000. ... As such, Defendant faced a sentence of five to 40 years imprisonment and a fine of $50,000 on each of his convictions on counts one and two, for which he was sentenced by the trial court to 10 years imprisonment on each count. Therefore, the imposed sentences are less than half the maximum sentence and are thus within the sentencing limits prescribed by the statute. ... At the time of the charged offenses in counts four and five, the penalty provision for possession of cocaine and possession of methamphetamine was governed by La. R.S. 40:967, which provided in pertinent part, “An aggregate weight of two grams or more but less than twenty-eight grams shall be imprisoned at hard labor, for not more than one year nor more than five years and, in addition, may be fined not more than five thousand dollars.” See La. R.S. 40:967(C)(2). As such, Defendant faced a sentence of one to five years imprisonment and a fine of $50,000 on each of his convictions on counts four and five, for which he was sentenced by the trial court to two years imprisonment on each count. Therefore, Defendant’s imposed sentences were half of the maximum sentences and within the sentencing limits prescribed by the statute.