Written legal arguments over the sentence of Seth Fontenot in the shooting death of Austin Rivault continued Monday.

Judge Edward Rubin denied a request by Fontenot’s attorney to correct the sentence handed down July 8 in the manslaughter of Rivault.

At a hearing to take place at 10:30 a.m. Thursday, Rubin is expected to resentence Fontenot, not correct the sentence.

District Attorney Keith Stutes and Fontenot’s attorney, Thomas Guilbeau, filed court documents Friday and Monday arguing their cases.

A jury convicted Fontenot March 25 on one count of manslaughter in the fatal shooting of Rivault and two counts of aggravated battery for shooting two teens who survived, Cole Kelley and William Bellamy,

Rubin sentenced Fontenot July 8 to three years at hard labor on each of the three convictions, to run concurrently, then suspended all but 13 months of jail time. He also gave Fontenot two years active supervised probation with the condition that he not own a firearm or engage in any criminal activities.

With good time, Fontenot could spend less than a year in jail.

Prosecutor J.N. Prather Jr. immediately objected, saying the sentence was illegal. He argued that the judge cannot suspend the sentence of someone convicted of manslaughter because it is a crime of violence. In addition, Prather argued that anyone convicted of a violent felony committed with a firearm must receive at least a 10-year sentence and if the gun is discharged during the felony crime, the defendant must be given at least 20 years in jail.

It took Guilbeau a few days to agree that the sentence was illegal and he filed a motion July 14 to correct the sentence. Guilbeau only agreed that Rubin was not allowed to suspend part of the sentence and place Fontenot on probation.

Rubin denied that motion, instead setting the hearing for Thursday to re-sentence Fontenot.

Stutes on Friday filed response to Guilbeau’s motion to correct the sentence. He argued that his office applied for writs to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal asking they address “the illegality of the suspended portion” of the sentence.

“The said sentence should be corrected only by eliminating the suspension of said sentence, the probation and special conditions of probation, and nothing else,” Stutes wrote.

Guilbeau filed a response Monday citing Louisiana law that states if the district attorney’s office wanted to invoke sentencing under the law that imposes restrictions and minimum jail time for using a firearm, it had to indicate that intention before the start of the trial.

Former Assistant District Attorney Mark Garber, who led the case from February 2013 through May 2014, did not file his intent to use that law, nor did Prather, who took over the case in May 2014, Guilbeau wrote.

“To request the court at this late date to sanction an error of the district attorney’s office is improper and illegal,” he wrote.

Had the request been made, there would have been a hearing and if the court had granted such a request, Guilbeau said it would have changed his trial strategy.