State of Louisiana v. Samuel Lee Tate, Jr. AKA Samuel L. Tate, Jr. AKA Sam L. Tate AKA Samual L. Tate

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

09-911

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

SAMUEL LEE TATE, JR.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 75779
HONORABLE VERNON B. CLARK, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

MARC T. AMY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy and J. David Painter, Judges.

SENTENCE AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTION
TO CORRECT SENTENCING MINUTES.

William E. Tilley
District Attorney
Terry W. Lambright
Assistant District Attorney
Post Office Box 1188
Leesville, LA 71446-1188
(337) 239-2008
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Paula C. Marx
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 80006
Lafayette, LA 70598-0006
(337) 991-9757
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Samuel Lee Tate, Jr.

AMY, Judge.

The defendant pled guilty to possession of Ecstacy. He was sentenced to five

years imprisonment at hard labor and ordered to pay a $1,500.00 fine plus court costs.

The defendant was advised that he was not eligible for diminution of his sentence.

The defendant now appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in advising him he was

not eligible for diminution of his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the

defendant’s sentence and remand the case with instruction to amend the trial court’s

sentencing minutes.

Factual and Procedural Background

The defendant was initially charged by bill of information for possession of

methylenedioxymethamphetamine (Ecstacy), possession of methamphetamine,

possession of marijuana; possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia to pack,

repack, store, contain, conceal or inhale, ingest or otherwise introduce a controlled

dangerous substance into the human body, and; operating a motor vehicle without a

license. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to possession of

ecstacy, a violation of La.R.S. 40:966(C), and the remaining counts were dismissed

by the State. In addition to dismissing the remaining counts, the State agreed to not

charge the defendant as a habitual offender in exchange for his plea.

On May 26, 2009, the trial court sentenced the defendant to five years

imprisonment at hard labor and ordered him to pay a fine of $1,500.00 plus court

costs. The defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider his sentence, which was denied

by the trial court.

The defendant now appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in advising him

that his sentence was not subject to diminution for good behavior.

Discussion

Diminution of Sentence

The defendant asserts that the trial court erred in advising him that his sentence

was not subject to diminution for good behavior. At the sentencing hearing, the trial

court stated, as follows:

The sentence of the court is that you serve five years at hard labor with
the Louisiana Department of Corrections and a [sic] pay fine of one
thousand five hundred dollars plus court costs. I’ll give you credit for
time served since the date of your arrest and this sentence is to run
concurrent with any other sentence that he is subject to. I advise you sir,
that pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 894.1D, your
sentence is not subject to diminution of [sic] - for good behavior due to
your prior convictions and your sentence was not enhanced upon the
basis of any habitual offender proceedings.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 894.1(D) states that:

D. Immediately following the imposition of a felony sentence
pursuant to this Article, the sentencing court shall advise the offender in
open court of each of the following:

(1) Whether, pursuant to the provisions of R.S. 15:571.3, the
offender’s sentence is subject to diminution for good behavior.

(2) Whether the sentence imposed was enhanced pursuant to R.S.
15:529.1 et seq., Article 893.3, or any other relevant provision of law.

The defendant argues that the trial court lacked authority under La.R.S.

15:573.1(C) to deny him eligibility for diminution of sentence because the statute is

exclusively directed toward the Department of Corrections. In State v. Narcisse, 97-

3161 (La. 6/26/98), 714 So.2d 698, the court held, as follows:

[A] trial judge lacks authority under La.R.S. 15:573.3(C) to deny
a defendant eligibility for good time credits against his sentence,
because that statute is “directed to the Department of Corrections
exclusively.” State ex rel. Simmons v. Stalder, 93-1852 (La.1/26/96),
666 So.2d 661. Moreover, even the Department of Corrections lacks
that authority under La.R.S. 15:571.3(C) in a case in which the trial
court has not formally adjudicated and sentenced the defendant as a
multiple offender under the provisions of La.R.S. 15:529.1. When the

2

sentencing court is of the opinion that a denial of diminution of sentence
is warranted under the specific circumstances of the case, the trial
judge’s discretion should be exercised under La.C.Cr.P. 890.1(B).

In the present case, the trial court did not violate the holding in Narcisse in that

the trial court merely advised the defendant pursuant to his obligation under La.Code

Crim.P. art. 894.1 that he was not eligible for diminution of sentence; it did not deny

eligibility for diminution of his sentence. Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is

affirmed.

Errors Patent

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for

errors patent on the fact of the record. After a review of the record, we find one error

patent requiring further action.

The sentencing transcript indicates that the trial court ordered the defendant to

pay a fine and court costs. However, the sentencing minutes only mention the trial

court’s order of the fine. “[I]t is well settled that when the minutes and the transcript

conflict, the transcript prevails.” State v. Wommack, 00-137, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir.

6/7/00), 770 So.2d 365, 369, writ denied, 00-2051 (La. 9/21/01), 797 So.2d 62.

Accordingly, we remand this case, and the district court is instructed to make the

necessary corrections in the minutes.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s sentence is affirmed. However, the

case is remanded, and the district court is instructed to amend the minutes of the

defendant’s sentencing to indicate the trial court’s order directing the defendant to

pay court costs.

SENTENCE AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTION TO
CORRECT SENTENCING MINUTES.

3