State of Louisiana v. Todd Vincent Edwards

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

23-37

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

TODD VINCENT EDWARDS

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

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 04-1111
HONORABLE ROGER P. HAMILTON, JR., JUDGE

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

VAN H. KYZAR
JUDGE

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

Court composed of D. Kent Savoie, Van H. Kyzar, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Hon. Bo Duhé
District Attorney
300 Iberia Street, Ste. 200
New Iberia, Louisiana 70560
(337) 369-4420
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Todd Vincent Edwards
In Proper Person
Rayburn Correctional Center
27268 HWY 21 North
Angie, LA 70426
(337) 436-2900
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Todd Vincent Edwards

KYZAR, Judge.

On July 14, 2004, Defendant, Todd Vincent Edwards, was charged by bill of

information with one count of second offense possession of a controlled and

dangerous substance, Schedule II, more than 28 grams, but less than 200 grams,

within a drug free zone, in violation of La.R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(a), 40:981.3, and

40:981.3, and one count of transactions involving proceeds from drug offenses, in

violation of La.R.S. 40:1049.

On May 5, 2005, Defendant filed a motion to waive a trial by jury, and a bench

trial was held on May 18, 2005, wherein Defendant was found guilty, as charged.

On December 12, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years at hard labor on count one

and five years at hard labor on count two. Defendant was given credit for time

served, and his sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Following sentencing,

the State filed a multiple offender bill. Before his adjudication hearing, Defendant

appealed his convictions and sentences. On appeal, this court vacated Defendant’s

conviction and sentence for possession of Schedule II, second offense, in a drug free

zone and entered a conviction for possession of more than 28 grams but less than

200 grams of cocaine and remanded the case for resentencing. This court also

overturned Defendant’s conviction for conducting a transaction involving proceeds

from a drug offense. State v. Edwards, 06-850 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/13/07), 963 So.2d

419.

Following remand, the trial court sentenced Defendant to seven years at hard

labor. Subsequently, Defendant was adjudicated a multiple offender and sentenced

to thirty years at hard labor and to pay a fine of $25,000 plus court costs. On appeal,

this court affirmed the habitual offender sentence after vacating the fine. State v.

Edwards, 09-799 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/17/10) (unpublished opinion), writ denied, 10-

849 (La. 11/19/10), 49 So.3d 396.

On February 1, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence with

the trial court, alleging errors with the habitual offender bill of information and that

the trial court failed to specify the prior conviction used to enhance Defendant’s

sentence. On April 19, 2022, the trial court denied Defendant’s motion. In September

2022, Defendant filed another motion to correct illegal sentence with the trial court,

again raising issue with the habitual offender bill of information and the trial court’s

alleged failure to specify the conviction used as an enhancement for Defendant’s

adjudication. On October 11, 2022, a hearing was held on Defendant’s motion, and

the trial court denied the motion finding it to be repetitive of Defendant’s previous

motion to correct illegal sentence that was denied on March 24, 2021.

On October 24, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for appeal with the trial court

seeking an appeal of the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence.

The trial court granted the appeal on October 26, 2022.

On January 19, 2023, this court lodged the appeal record. On January 23,

2023, this court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal in this case should not

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

Crim.P. art. 912.1.

On February 7, 2023, Defendant timely filed his response to the rule to show

cause wherein he argues La.Code CrimP. art. 912.1 does not apply to his motion to

correct illegal sentence because “a motion to correct an illegal sentence is the proper

remedy to make a collateral attack upon his sentence and conviction.”

It is the content of the pleading, not its caption, that determines its nature.

State ex rel. Daley v. State, 97-2612 (La. 11/7/97), 703 So.2d 32. Based on the

2

arguments raised, we find Defendant’s motion is more properly construed as an

application for post-conviction relief and is subject to La.Code Crim.P. art.

930.6(A), which states: “The petitioner may invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of

the court of appeal if the trial court dismisses the application or otherwise denies

relief on an application for post conviction relief. No appeal lies from a judgment

dismissing an application or otherwise denying relief.”

Further, La.Code Crim.P. art. 912(C)(1) provides the right of judicial review

by application to the court of appeal for a writ of review when a judgment is not

appealable. As Defendant is seeking review of the trial court’s October 11, 2022

denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, the proper manner for review of this

ruling is a supervisory writ. La.Code Crim.P. arts. 912.1(C)(1) and 930.6(A).

Furthermore, on November 3, 2022, this court filed a writ of review for

Defendant bearing docket number 22-713 wherein Defendant seeks supervisory

review of the trial court’s October 11, 2022 denial of Defendant’s motion to correct

illegal sentence. As Defendant currently has a pending writ application challenging

the same ruling, we hereby dismiss Defendant’s appeal.

Accordingly, we hereby dismiss Defendant’s appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

3