State v. Hall

|,1 respectfully concur. I agree that the matter should be remanded for resentenc-ing pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1; however, I write separately to express my views as it relates to an errors patent review of the cleansing period issue.

I find that given the “sufficiency of the proof of the ‘cleansing period’ bears on [Mr. Hall’s] due process rights” and in our *73capacity as an error-correcting court, we should apply an errors patent review to the cleansing period issue on appeal as fellow Louisiana circuits have done. State v. Abdul, 11-863, p. 28-29 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/24/12), 94 So.3d 801,…