State of Louisiana v. Jared J. Tidwell

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

14-123

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JARED J. TIDWELL

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 173773
HONORABLE WILLIAM BENNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

MARC T. AMY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Marc T. Amy, and Elizabeth A. Pickett,
Judges.

AFFIRMED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Charles G. Gravel
Gravel, Cespiva, & Wilkerson
Post Office Box 1792
Alexandria, LA 71309-1792
(318) 487-4501
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Jared J. Tidwell

John R. Flynn, Jr.
Post Office Box 1308
Alexandria, LA 71309-1792
(318) 487-1230
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Jared J. Tidwell

Charles A. Riddle, III
District Attorney
Michael F. Kelly
Assistant District Attorney
Post Office Box 1200
Marksville, LA 71351
(318) 253-6587
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

AMY, Judge.

The defendant was convicted of obstruction of justice, a violation of La.R.S.

14:130.1. Thereafter, the State filed a habitual offender bill of information,

seeking to have the defendant adjudicated a fourth felony offender. However, the

State later filed a motion to reduce the habitual offender bill to third felony

offender status. The trial court granted the State’s motion, adjudicated the

defendant a third felony offender, and imposed a habitual offender sentence of

thirty years at hard labor, without the benefit of probation or suspension of

sentence. The defendant appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm with

instructions.

Factual and Procedural Background

The defendant, Jared J. Tidwell, was convicted of obstruction of justice, a

violation of La.R.S. 14:130.1. The facts of the defendant’s underlying conviction

are discussed in State v. Tidwell, 14-122 (La.App. 3 Cir. _/_/_), __ So.3d __. Prior

to the defendant’s sentencing, the State instituted habitual offender proceedings

pursuant to La.R.S. 15:529.1(A)(4)(b), alleging that the defendant was a fourth

felony offender. Subsequently, the State filed a “Motion to Reduce Habitual

Offender Bill to Third Felony Offender Status to be Sentenced Under La.R.S.

15:529.1(A)(3)(a).” The trial court granted the State’s motion, adjudicated the

defendant as a third felony offender, and imposed a habitual offender sentence of

thirty years at hard labor without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence.

The defendant appealed his conviction for obstruction of justice in State v.

Tidwell, 14-122 (La.App. 3 Cir. _/_/_), __ So.3d __, and his habitual offender

conviction in the instant appeal. The defendant has alleged no assignment of error,

but asserts that, if his conviction for obstruction of justice is overturned, his

habitual offender adjudication must be vacated as a matter of law.

Discussion

Errors Patent

Pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors

patent on the face of the record. After performing such a review, this court notes

one such error requiring correction of the sentencing minutes. Our review of the

minutes indicates that the defendant’s sentence was imposed without the benefit of

parole. However, the sentencing transcript reveals that, although the trial court

originally imposed the defendant’s habitual offender sentence without the benefit

of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, the trial court later corrected the

sentence to delete the restriction on parole. See La.R.S. 15:529.1(G). It is well-

settled that when the minutes and the transcript conflict, the transcript prevails.

State v. Dorsey, 10-1021 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/9/11), 58 So.3d 637. Accordingly, the

trial court is ordered to correct the minutes of sentencing within ten days of the

date of this opinion.

Habitual Offender Sentence

In State v. Tidwell, 14-122 (La.App. 3 Cir. _/_/_), __ So.3d __, this court

affirmed the defendant’s conviction for obstruction of justice. The defendant

argues that, if his underlying conviction is vacated, his habitual offender sentence

must also be vacated. See State v. Petty, 596 So.2d 421 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1992).

However, the defendant’s appeal of his underlying conviction was unsuccessful.

Thus, the situation contemplated by the defendant’s argument has not come to pass.

Accordingly, we find no merit to the defendant’s assertion on appeal.

2

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the habitual offender adjudication and sentence of

the defendant, Jared J. Tidwell, are affirmed. The trial court is ordered to correct

the sentencing minutes within ten days of the date of this opinion.

AFFIRMED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

3