State v. Epperley

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Epperley

119 So. 3d 942, 2012 La.App. 4 Cir. 0766, 2013 WL 3155361, 2013 La. App. LEXIS 1248

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 19, 2013

DocketNo. 2012-KA-0766

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 119 So. 3d 942 (State v. Epperley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Epperley, 119 So. 3d 942, 2012 La.App. 4 Cir. 0766, 2013 WL 3155361, 2013 La. App. LEXIS 1248 (La. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

JAMES F. McKAY, III, Chief Judge.

_JjA review of the record reveals a patent error which is fatal to this appeal. While the minute entry states that the trial court [943]*943imposed sentences of five years incarceration under the supervision of the Louisiana Department of Corrections (“D.O.C.”) upon each defendant in this case, as well as in each of the companion cases, the transcript of sentencing reveals that the court failed to impose sentence in this case. The appellants pled guilty on the same day in several cases involving charges of theft and misappropriation, and the court reset sentencing in all of the cases until after it had conducted the restitution hearing. In simultaneously rendering sentences in all of the cases, the trial court inadvertently failed to impose sentence in the instant matter, although it ordered the sentences in other cases to be served either concurrently or consecutively with the sentences in this case.¹ In the event of a discrepancy between the minutes of a hearing and the transcript, the transcript prevails. See State v. Watson, 2000-1580, p. 3 n. 4 (La.5/14/02), 817 So.2d 81, 83; State v. Maten, 2004-1718, p. 18, (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 899 So.2d 711, 725. Therefore, this Court must conclude that although the trial court | ^imposed the amount of restitution that the appellants must pay, it did not actually impose-sentences in this case.

La.C.Cr.P. art. 912C(1) provides that a defendant may appeal from a “judgment which imposes sentence.” See State v. Baxter, 343 So.2d 733 (La.1977) (per curiam ). Thus, the appeal was taken prematurely. As per Baxter, we dismiss this appeal and remand the case for the imposition of sentences.

APPEAL DISMISSED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JAMES F. McKAY, III, Chief Judge.

_JjA review of the record reveals a patent error which is fatal to this appeal. While the minute entry states that the trial court [943]*943imposed sentences of five years incarceration under the supervision of the Louisiana Department of Corrections (“D.O.C.”) upon each defendant in this case, as well as in each of the companion cases, the transcript of sentencing reveals that the court failed to impose sentence in this case. The appellants pled guilty on the same day in several cases involving charges of theft and misappropriation, and the court reset sentencing in all of the cases until after it had conducted the restitution hearing. In simultaneously rendering sentences in all of the cases, the trial court inadvertently failed to impose sentence in the instant matter, although it ordered the sentences in other cases to be served either concurrently or consecutively with the sentences in this case.¹ In the event of a discrepancy between the minutes of a hearing and the transcript, the transcript prevails. See State v. Watson, 2000-1580, p. 3 n. 4 (La.5/14/02), 817 So.2d 81, 83; State v. Maten, 2004-1718, p. 18, (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 899 So.2d 711, 725. Therefore, this Court must conclude that although the trial court | ^imposed the amount of restitution that the appellants must pay, it did not actually impose-sentences in this case.

La.C.Cr.P. art. 912C(1) provides that a defendant may appeal from a “judgment which imposes sentence.” See State v. Baxter, 343 So.2d 733 (La.1977) (per curiam ). Thus, the appeal was taken prematurely. As per Baxter, we dismiss this appeal and remand the case for the imposition of sentences.

APPEAL DISMISSED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 So. 3d 942, 2012 La.App. 4 Cir. 0766, 2013 WL 3155361, 2013 La. App. LEXIS 1248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-epperley-lactapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack