patent sentencing error in Louisiana

2003In State v. Major, 2002-0133, p. 1 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/2/02), 829 So.2d 625 , this Court considered the issue of an illegally lenient sentence resulting from the trial court’s failure to impose a fine as required by statute, stating: Although we recognize that State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790 , arguably calls into question the jurisprudential rule against correcting a patent sentencing error favorable to the defendant when the state fails to appeal, we read the holding in Williams as applying only to sentencing errors subject to automatic correction under La.

2002Although we recognize that State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790 , arguably calls into question the jurisprudential rule against correcting a patent sentencing error favorable to the defendant when the state fails to appeal, 4 we read the holding in Williams as applying only to sentencing errors subject to automatic correction under La.

2003In State v. Major, 2002-0133, p. 1 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/2/02), 829 So.2d 625 , this Court considered the issue of an illegally lenient sentence resulting from the trial court’s failure to impose a fine as required by statute, stating: Although we recognize that State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790 , arguably calls into question the jurisprudential rule against correcting a patent sentencing error favorable to the defendant when the state fails to appeal, we read the holding in Williams as applying only to sentencing errors subject to automatic correction under La.

1995La.C.Cr.P. art. 555; State v. Delatte, 504 So.2d 1067 , 1068 n. 1 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987). [2] We note the following patent sentencing error.

1994However, in State v. Riley, 613 So.2d 240 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992), we recognized the patent sentencing error and, pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure article 882(A), amended defendant's sentence to reflect that she was to be given credit for time served prior to the execution of her sentence. [2] The victim is actually Foret's stepmother.

1992In State v. Fraser, 484 So.2d 122 (La. 1986), the Supreme Court noted that when correction of a patent sentencing error does not involve the exercise of sentencing discretion, there is no reason why the appellate court should not simply amend the sentence.

1991State v. Pounds, 522 So.2d 1119 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1988).

1986State v. Jackson, 452 So.2d 682 (La.1984).

1984For guidance, see State v. Lathers, 444 So.2d 96 (La.1983).

1983COVINGTON, Judge, specially concurring: It would be barely worthwhile to belabor the point were it not for the per curiam statement of our Supreme Court in a recent writ application in “State of Louisiana versus Charles Napoli,” 437 So.2d 868 , No. 83-K-0667, wherein the justices stated that to review a patent sentencing error favorable to a defendant would provide “a chilling effect on defendant’s exercise of his right to appeal.” The authority cited for such a sweeping pronouncement is State v. Goodley, 398 So.2d 1068 (La.1981).

1983The question of what action an appellate court is to take when there is a patent sentencing error adverse to the state, although review was not sought by the state, has been most recently considered by another panel of this Court in its opinion in “State of Louisiana v. Eli Jackson,” 349 So.2d 622 on the docket of this Court handed down this date. 2 We are most impressed with the thoroughness of this scholarly opinion.

1983COVINGTON, Judge, specially concurring: It would be barely worthwhile to belabor the point were it not for the per curiam statement of our Supreme Court in a recent writ application in “State of Louisiana versus Charles Napoli,” 437 So.2d 868 , No. 83-K-0667, wherein the justices stated that to review a patent sentencing error favorable to a defendant would provide “a chilling effect on defendant’s exercise of his right to appeal.” The authority cited for such a sweeping pronouncement is State v. Goodley, 398 So.2d 1068 (La.1981).