State v. Sere
This text of 476 So. 2d 495 (State v. Sere) 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.
Opinion
Defendants, Billy J. Sere and Jim Sere, father and son, respectively, were salesmen for Covington Mobile Homes, Inc. They were indicted by the grand jury for violation of La.R.S. 14:67 1 in connection with numerous thefts of customer down payments. Defendants were tried in the same trial by jury. Billy J. Sere was convicted of seven counts of theft of five hundred dollars or more, and Jim Sere was convicted of two counts of theft of five hundred dollars or more. A third defendant, Winston Teeter, was convicted of three counts of theft of five hundred dollars or more, but he did not join in this appeal. The defendants herein and Teeter were represented by the same attorney. The charges against a fourth defendant were nolle prosequied after he made full restitution to the victims for their actual cash losses and agreed to testify against the other defendants. Defendants were sentenced2 on June 4, 1984.
[496]*496Prior to sentencing, defendants made several very serious allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and asked the trial judge for the opportunity to present evidence on the matter. This request was denied. Defendants were sentenced and now assign as error the trial judge’s denial of their request.
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is more properly raised by an application for post conviction relief (formerly, by writ of habeas corpus in the trial court) in district court where a full evidentiary hearing may be conducted. La.C.Cr.P. art. 924, et seq.; State v. Williams, 464 So.2d 451 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985). However, where the record discloses evidence needed to decide the issue and it was raised by assignment of error on appeal, the appellate court may address the matter in the [497]*497interest of judicial economy. State v. Bourgeois, 451 So.2d 172 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984), writ denied 457 So.2d 18 (La.1984).
Since defendants specifically asked for the opportunity to lay a proper foundation for appellate review of the issue, the trial court should have allowed them to do so prior to sentencing. Therefore, we vacate the sentences and remand for eviden-tiary hearing where defendants are to be allowed to present evidence in support of their allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.
If, after the hearing, the trial court finds no merit to defendants’ contentions and does not grant a new trial, defendants may seek review on appeal after resentencing.
SENTENCES VACATED. CASE REMANDED TO TRIAL COURT FOR EVI-DENTIARY HEARING AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
476 So. 2d 495, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 9877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sere-lactapp-1985.