I concur in the result, but would grant and docket to address the issue of the vacature of the defendant's sentence.
State v. Schane, 244 So. 3d 433 (2018)
June 1, 2018
·
Louisiana Supreme Court
·
No. 2017–KP–0582
244 So. 3d 433
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Phillip SCHANE
No. 2017-KP-0582
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
June 1, 2018
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF IBERIA
This court granted the defendant's application, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1. The State's application for rehearing is granted to clarify that the district court on remand has discretion to determine the extent of the proceedings necessary to comply with that directive.
*434While defendant must be given the opportunity to show his crime did not reflect irreparable corruption, in accordance with Montgomery v. Louisiana , 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016), because substantial proceedings have already been conducted in this matter the parties should have the opportunity to introduce transcripts of those earlier proceedings at the resentencing hearing conducted on remand. Furthermore, in light of the earlier proceedings, the district court has discretion to determine what additional evidence is necessary to comply with La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1(C). Finally, as we noted previously, after defendant is resentenced, that judgment is included by statute among those which defendant may appeal. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 912(C)(1).
WEIMER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.