Opinion
2023 KW 0989
01-11-2024
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. INDIA ARMANI RATLIFF
In Re: Belinda Parker Brown, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 3163-M-2022.
BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.
WRIT DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. There is no indication that relator requested that the district court stay the execution of the fine nor is there a record showing that payment was made under protest or that it was made with any reservation. See State v. Malone, 2008-2253 (La. 12/1/09), 25 So.3d 113, 124. The satisfaction of a sentence by payment of the fine imposed renders subsequent appellate review of the judgment moot. Malone, 25 So.3d at 115. Therefore, the writ application is denied regarding review of the contempt judgment. The imposition of a one thousand dollar ($1000.00) fine exceeds the maximum penalty permitted by law. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 25(B) . Accordingly, the fine is vacated and this matter is remanded to the district court for resentencing within the statutory limits.
PMc
CHH
Miller, J., I respectfully dissent in part. In Malone, the court held that the defendant's voluntary payment of the fine imposed as a misdemeanor sentence prior to applying for appellate review, and without recording any objection to the fine, renders any subsequent review of the conviction or sentence moot. State v. Malone, 2008-2253 (La. 12/1/09), 25 So.3d 113. However, in Malone, the payment of the fine satisfied the sentence. Here, the sentence is not satisfied as the finding of contempt resulted in the defendant being permanently banned from the courtroom. I believe we can review the contempt finding without running afoul of the principles established in Malone.