State of Louisiana v. James Toups

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

17-792

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JAMES TOUPS

**********
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA
DOCKET NUMBER 14-CR-1410
HONORABLE LORI A. LANDRY, JUDGE

**********

JOHN E. CONERY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, John E. Conery, and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Richard Allen Spears
101 Taylor Street
New Iberia, Louisiana 70560
(337) 367-1960
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT:
James Toups

M. Bofill Duhe
District Attorney
Claire Howingon
Angelique M. Narcisse
Assistant District Attorneys
Sixteenth Judicial District
300 Iberia Street, Suite 200
New Iberia, Louisiana 70560
Telephone: (337) 369-4420
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:
State of Louisiana

CONERY, Judge,

On May 3, 2016, Defendant James Toups pled guilty to misdemeanor

domestic abuse battery, in violation of La.R.S. 14:35.3(C). On May 5, 2016,

Defendant was sentenced to the maximum six months in parish jail, without

diminution of sentence and with credit for time served. He was also ordered to pay

a $500.00 fine plus court costs or else to serve an additional thirty days in parish

jail. Defendant now seeks review of his sentence, alleging the trial court erred in

dictating whether he could receive diminution of his sentence and in ordering him

to serve more than the maximum six months in jail authorized by La.R.S.

14:35.3(C) if he fails to pay his fine. Per his writ application, Defendant received

bail after conviction and is currently not serving his sentence.

TIMELINESS

Initially, we note that Defendant filed his notice of intent in May of 2016,

and the trial court granted Defendant thirty days “from the date of notice of the

filing of the transcript in the record to file a writ application with the Third Circuit

Court of Appeals” on May 19, 2016. The transcript is dated December 29, 2016;

however, the Clerk of Court file stamp on the transcript is August 1, 2017.

Defendant postmarked his writ application to this court on August 31, 2017.

Accordingly, we find that the application is timely filed despite the unexplained

discrepancy between the transcript’s signature date and filing date.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

We initially note that Defendant’s writ application is deficient, as it fails to

include the bill of information, as required by Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal,

Rule 4-5, and a copy of all the exhibits introduced during Defendant’s sentencing,

as required by La.Code Crim.P. art. 912.1. However, we find that Defendant’s

writ application should not be dismissed as deficient, but should be considered on

the merits as the deficiencies do not prevent review of Defendant’s claims.

Although neither of Defendant’s assigned errors were raised in the trial

court, they both constitute errors patent. This court has previously stated that

errors patent “review may also be conducted in applications for supervisory writs.”

State v. Price, 583 So.2d 499, 500 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990), writ denied, 589 So.2d

494 (La.1991).

In his first assignment of error, Defendant argues that the trial court lacked

authority to deny him any type of good time credit when it ordered him to serve his

sentence “day for day.” Defendant is correct. Louisiana Revised Statutes

15:571.3(A)(1) states that:

Every prisoner in a parish prison convicted of an offense and
sentenced to imprisonment without hard labor, except a prisoner
convicted a second time of a crime of violence as defined by R.S.
14:2(B), may earn a diminution of sentence, to be known as “good
time”, by good behavior and performance of work or self-
improvement activities, or both.

Additionally, under La.R.S. 15:571.3(A)(2), “[t]he sheriff of the parish in

which the conviction was had shall have the sole authority to determine when good

time has been earned in accordance with the sheriff’s regulations and the

provisions of this Section.” The power to determine good time eligibility and

calculations is granted solely to the sheriff (or the superintendent of any

correctional facility not operated by a sheriff). This court and the supreme court

have repeatedly stated that trial judges lack authority to deny good time eligibility.

See State v. Narcisse, 97-3161 (La. 6/26/98), 714 So.2d 698; State v. Fallon, 15-

1116 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/16), 189 So.3d 605; and State v. James, 09-606 (La.App.

3 Cir. 12/9/09), 26 So.3d 915. Accordingly, the trial court exceeded its authority

2

when it ordered Defendant’s sentence be served without diminution for good

behavior.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO

In his second assignment of error, Defendant asserts the trial court exceeded

its sentencing authority when it ordered him to serve an additional thirty days in

parish jail if he failed to pay a $500.00 fine after it had already ordered him to

serve a six-month sentence, the maximum sentence allowable under La.R.S.

14:35.3(C). Again, Defendant is correct, as the imposition of the additional thirty

days in the parish jail would result in Defendant serving a longer sentence than is

allowed under the statute he was convicted of violating. As Defendant notes in his

writ application, La.Code Crim.P. art. 884 specifically prohibits what the trial court

did in the case sub judice.

If a sentence imposed includes a fine or costs, the sentence shall
provide that in default of payment thereof the defendant shall be
imprisoned for a specified period not to exceed one year;
provided that where the maximum prison sentence which may
be imposed as a penalty for a misdemeanor is six months or
less, the total period of imprisonment upon conviction of the
offense, including imprisonment for default in payment of a
fine or costs, shall not exceed six months for that offense.

The law is clear, for a misdemeanor conviction with a maximum sentence of

incarceration of six months, the total time served between the sentence and

additional time for failure to pay a fine cannot exceed six months. Defendant’s

sentence exposes him to thirty days more than the maximum sentence allowed by

law. In State v. McMillan, 02-181 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/12/02), 819 So.2d 503, this

court held that a suspended maximum sentence with a probation condition that the

defendant serve ninety days in parish jail exposed the defendant to a term of

imprisonment that exceeded the maximum allowed. Similarly, Defendant’s

sentence exposes him to a term of imprisonment that exceeds the maximum by
3

thirty days. Accordingly, his sentence is illegally excessive and is hereby vacated

and the matter remanded to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with this

ruling and the applicable law.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

4