State of Louisiana v. B.S.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 07-1492

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

B. S.

************

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 19719-01
HONORABLE ROBERT L. WYATT, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

JIMMIE C. PETERS
JUDGE

************

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Jimmie C. Peters, and
James T. Genovese, Judges.

SENTENCE VACATED. REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR
RESENTENCING.

John F. Derosier
District Attorney
Carla S. Sigler
Assistant District Attorney
Fourteenth Judicial District
1020 Ryan Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Annette Roach
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 1747
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602-1747
(337) 436-2900
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
B.S.

PETERS, J.

This matter is before us for the second time based on a complaint by the

defendant, B.S., concerning the sentence imposed on him for his conviction of

forcible rape, a violation of La.R.S. 14:42.1. For the following reasons, we vacate the

sentence imposed and remand this matter to the trial court for resentencing.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are not in dispute. The defendant pled

guilty on May 17, 2004, to the offense of forcible rape. The trial court then sentenced

him to serve twenty-five years at hard labor, with at least two years of the sentence

to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

Over two years after sentencing, on July 6, 2006, the defendant filed a motion

in the trial court to have his sentence corrected. In his motion, the defendant asserted

that the trial court, by using the phrase “at least” with regard to that portion of the

sentence to be served without probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, imposed

an illegally indeterminate sentence. The trial court denied this motion, and the

defendant sought review of that decision by this court through an application for

supervisory writs. In an unpublished opinion, this court granted him relief with the

following language:

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY: We find that
Relator’s sentence imposed on May 17, 2004, is indeterminate in that
the court failed to specify what portion of Relator’s sentence was to be
served without benefit of parole. See La.R.S. 14:42.1(B) and La.Code
Crim.P. art. 879. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand to the
trial court for imposition of a determinate sentence.

State v. [B.S.], 06-1532 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/9/07) writ denied, 06-1532 (La. 3/16/07).

On May 25, 2007, the trial court resentenced the defendant to serve twenty-five

years at hard labor, with two years of the sentence to be served without benefit of

parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. This sentence constitutes the basis of

the appeal now before us. Initially, the defendant sought review of this sentence

through an application for supervisory writs. Recognizing that the proper vehicle for

review of this sentence was an appeal, this court in another unpublished opinion,

converted the supervisory writ application to an appeal. State v. [B.S.], 07-1156

(La.App. 3 Cir. 10/24/07).

The defendant complains that (1) the trial court erred in resentencing him in the

absence of legal counsel and without a valid waiver of his right to the assistance of

counsel, and (2) the trial court erred in failing to dispose of all counts contained in the

bill of information giving rise to his conviction.

Assignment of Error Number One

The record before us establishes that the defendant was represented by counsel

from early in the proceedings through the plea proceedings held May 17, 2004. In

the post-conviction pleadings filed thereafter, the defendant represented himself both

at the trial level and in this court.1 Thus, when he appeared before the trial court for

resentencing on May 25, 2007, he represented himself. When this court converted

his supervisory writ application to an appeal, we also ordered that the trial court

appoint counsel to represent the defendant on appeal, provided the defendant was

found to be indigent and did not waive assistance of counsel. Thereafter, the trial

court appointed counsel for the defendant in compliance with our order.2

The defendant’s complaint on appeal is that the trial court erred in proceeding

with the resentencing hearing when he was not represented by counsel and without

obtaining a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel.

1
The issues now before us are not the only relief sought by the defendant after his conviction.
2
The record does not reflect that the trial court entertained a hearing to determine the
defendant’s financial status or whether he waived counsel on appeal. However, his right to
representation on appeal is not an issue before us.

2

In State v. Dupas, 94-1264 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/96), 670 So.2d
667, this court held that a defendant has a right to counsel at his
sentencing and resentencing. “Unless a defendant has made a knowing
and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel, any sentence imposed in
the absence of counsel is invalid and must be set aside.” Id. at p. 4, at
669, quoting State v. Flowers, 598 So.2d 1144 (La.App. 1 Cir.1992).

State v. Bernard, 97-362, p. 18 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/8/97), 702 So.2d 876, 885. Citing

the Dupas decision and La.Code Crim.P. art. 511, the State of Louisiana (state)

concedes in its brief to this court that the defendant was not represented by counsel

and did not waive his right to counsel at the May 25, 2007 hearing. It suggests that

the defendant is entitled to relief and that a remand for resentencing is the proper

remedy. We also agree.

Assignment of Error Number Two

In this assignment of error, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred in

failing to dispose of all counts contained in the original bill of information.3 In its

brief to this court, the state agrees with the defendant’s argument on this issue, and

suggests a remand is appropriate. We decline to address this issue.

This court’s October 24, 2007 ruling converting the defendant’s supervisory

writ application to an appeal addressed only the defendant’s argument concerning his

sentence. That being the case, the issue raised by the defendant in his second

assignment of error is not properly before us.

DISPOSITION

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand this

matter to the trial court for resentencing in a manner consistent with this opinion.

3
The defendant was originally charged with one count of aggravated rape, a violation of
La.R.S. 14:42; one count of attempted aggravated rape, a violation of La.R.S. 14:42 and La.R.S.
14:27; and two counts of aggravated incest, violations of La.R.S. 14:78.1. His conviction of forcible
rape arose from a plea agreement arising from this bill of information.

3

SENTENCE VACATED. REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR
RESENTENCING.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule
2-16.3, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.

4