94 KA 1099 Precedential Processed

State v. Soco

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed June 23, 1995 · 657 So. 2d 603

Cited by

State Of Louisiana v. James Bishop La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. Jason Leon Griffin La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. Merrel A. Porche La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State Of Louisiana v. Brian Moser La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Kitts 250 So. 3d 939 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Meadows 219 So. 3d 1200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Walder 952 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Hebert 846 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Sopczak 823 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Williams 786 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Horne 768 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Villarreal 759 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000

all 14 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Chapman 471 So. 2d 716
State v. Russland Enterprises, Inc. 542 So. 2d 154
State v. Brady 506 So. 2d 802

Opinion text

657 So.2d 603 (1995) STATE of Louisiana v. Jerome SOCO. No. 94 KA 1099. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. June 23, 1995. Camille A. Morvant, II, Thibodaux, for appellee, State of Louisiana. John Bourgeois, Thibodaux, for defendant/appellant, Jerome Soco. Before LEBLANC, PITCHER and FITZSIMMONS, JJ. LEBLANC, Judge. Defendant, Jerome Soco, was charged by bill of information with four counts of armed robbery, violations of La.R.S. 14:64. He pled not guilty and, after trial by jury, was found guilty of all four counts. Defendant subsequently was sentenced to thirty years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence and with credit for time served. He has appealed, urging one assignment of error. This Court has noticed error patent on the face of the record which requires us to remand this matter for further proceedings before we can consider defendant's appeal. The sentence imposed in this case is illegal. Defendant's convictions of four counts of armed robbery require the imposition of four separate sentences. Instead of imposing a separate sentence for each count, the trial court imposed one sentence of thirty years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. A defendant can appeal from a final judgment of conviction only where a sentence has been imposed. La.C.Cr.P. art. 912(C)(1); State v. Chapman, 471 So.2d 716 (La.1985). Patent sentencing error occurs when a trial court, in sentencing for multiple counts, does not impose a separate sentence for each count. See State v. Russland Enterprises, Inc., 542 So.2d 154, 155 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989); State v. Brady, 506 So.2d 802, 803 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987). In the absence of valid sentences, the defendant's appeal is not properly before this Court. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the trial court is vacated, and we remand this matter to the trial court for resentencing consistent with the views expressed herein. After resentencing, defendant may perfect a new appeal. *604 SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.