State of Louisiana v. Joseph Anthony Romero

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

08-1201

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JOSEPH ANTHONY ROMERO

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

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 07-394
HONORABLE EDWARD M. LEONARD, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

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

JIMMIE C. PETERS
JUDGE

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

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Jimmie C. Peters, and Marc T. Amy, Judges.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

J. Phil Haney
District Attorney, 16th Judicial District
Walter J. Senette, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney, 16th Judicial District
St. Mary Parish Courthouse
Franklin, LA 70538
(337) 828-4100
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Peggy J. Sullivan
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 2775
Monroe, LA 71207-2775
(318) 387-6124
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Joseph Anthony Romero

PETERS, J.

A six-person jury convicted the defendant, Joseph Anthony Romero, of

unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a violation of La.R.S. 14:68.4, and of aggravated

flight from an officer, a violation of La.R.S. 4:108.1. The trial court initially

sentenced the defendant to serve ten years at hard labor on the first conviction and

two years at hard labor on the second. Thereafter, the State of Louisiana filed a bill

of information charging the defendant as an habitual offender pursuant to La.R.S.

15:529.1. After a hearing, the trial court found the defendant to be a fourth felony

offender, vacated the previously imposed sentences, and sentenced him to seventy

years at hard labor. The defendant has appealed this adjudication and sentence, and

for the following reasons, we reverse the habitual offender adjudication, vacate the

sentence, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

In a separate appeal, State v. Romero, 08-1102 (La.App. 3 Cir. ___/___/09),

___ So.2d ___, the defendant contested the validity of the convictions of

unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and of aggravated flight from an officer. In that

appeal, we concluded that the record before us required reversal of those convictions

and remanded that case to the trial court for further proceedings. Because we

reversed the defendant’s convictions for the underlying offenses, we must also

reverse the habitual offender adjudication that was based on them.

DISPOSITION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the defendant’s habitual offender

adjudication, vacate the sentence imposed, and remand the matter to the trial court for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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