State of Louisiana v. Frin Wayne Coward

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

21-676

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS
FRIN WAYNE COWARD

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

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 13147-17
HONORABLE DERRICK D. KEE, DISTRICT JUDGE

************
CANDYCE G. PERRET
JUDGE
************

Court composed of Candyce G. Perret, Jonathan W. Perry, and Sharon Darville
Wilson, Judges.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

Stephen C. Dwight
District Attorney - 14th Judicial District
P.O. Box 3206
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Chad M. Ikerd
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 2125
Lafayette, LA 70502-2125
(225) 806-2930
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Frin Wayne Coward

Perret, Judge.

On February 24, 2018, Defendant-Appellant, Frin Wayne Coward, was

convicted of second degree murder, a violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. On appeal, this

court affirmed Defendant-Appellant’s conviction of second degree murder but found

the case must be remanded for sentencing as the trial court had never actually

imposed a sentence. State v. Coward, 18-951 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/5/19) (unpublished

opinion). On July 11, 2019, the trial court sentenced Defendant-Appellant to life

imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of

sentence. In Defendant-Appellant’s second appeal, this court affirmed his life

sentence but ordered the trial court to correct the sentencing minutes to accurately

reflect the imposition of “life” imprisonment rather than “live” imprisonment. State

v. Coward, 19-869 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/20/20), 298 So.3d 260, writ denied, 20-769 (La.

10/14/20), 302 So.3d 1123.1

Because the original sentencing judge no longer heard criminal cases, the case

was randomly allotted to a new sentencing judge upon remand. Believing the

correction should be made in Defendant-Appellant’s presence, the trial judge held a

hearing on February 3, 2021, with Defendant-Appellant attending via simultaneous

audio-visual transmission. The trial judge acknowledged that nothing substantive

would be done to the sentence and that the only change would be a technical change:

It is the Court’s position that this matter was remanded only for
the limited purposes of determining, or correcting the word “live” or
“live,” and making that word - - making the minutes reflect the word
“Life imprisonment.” And, for that reason, that is the ruling and order
of the Court.

1
Judge Conery dissented, finding the case should be remanded for resentencing and the
trial court instructed to consider the sentencing guidelines of La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1 and
instructed to make factual findings based on all of the evidence in the record. Coward, 298 So.3d
260 (Conery, J., dissenting).

Believing the trial court actually resentenced Defendant-Appellant, defense

counsel filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied on April 13, 2021,

and a motion for appeal, which was granted on June 8, 2021. The appeal was lodged

in this court on October 20, 2021. On November 17, 2021, this court received

Defendant-Appellant’s brief. In the “Jurisdiction” section of his brief, appellate

counsel states that since the trial court’s only action was ministerial and not

substantive, he did not believe an appealable issue exists in this case. Despite his

belief that there is no appealable issue, appellate counsel assigns error as to the trial

court’s failure to consider a downward departure at the “resentencing.”

On November 24, 2021, this court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal

should not be dismissed as the judgment at issue is not an appealable judgment.

La.Code Crim.P. art. 912. On December 1, 2021, Defendant-Appellant’s counsel

submitted a letter to this court, stating that he would like the argument in the

jurisdictional section of his original brief to serve as his answer to this court’s rule

to show cause order.

We agree with Defendant-Appellant’s counsel that no appealable issue exists

since the trial court’s only action was a ministerial correction of the sentencing

minutes and not a substantive change to Defendant-Appellant’s sentence. The trial

court’s ministerial correction of the sentencing minutes did not constitute a judgment

which imposes sentence. See La.Code Crim.P. art. 912(C)(1). Accordingly, we

hereby dismiss Defendant-Appellant’s appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

2