Summary
In Woods, this Court found that upon granting defendant's motion for appeal, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to subsequently sentence the defendant or to rule on defendant's motion for new trial and motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal.
Summary of this case from State v. DillonOpinion
NO. 19-KA-200
12-26-2019
STATE of Louisiana v. Corey WOODS a/k/a Cocomo
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Paul D. Connick, Jr., Terry M. Boudreaux, Anne M. Wallis, Lynn Schiffman, Douglas W. Freese COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, COREY WOODS AKA COCOMO, Corey Woods, Prentice L. White COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Jeffrey M. Landry, J. Taylor, Gray Michelle, W. Ghetti
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Paul D. Connick, Jr., Terry M. Boudreaux, Anne M. Wallis, Lynn Schiffman, Douglas W. Freese
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, COREY WOODS AKA COCOMO, Corey Woods, Prentice L. White
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Jeffrey M. Landry, J. Taylor, Gray Michelle, W. Ghetti
Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
WINDHORST, J.
Defendant, Corey Woods a/k/a "Cocomo," has appealed his convictions and sentences for three counts of second degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. For the reasons that follow, we vacate defendant's sentences and the trial court's rulings on defendant's Motion for New Trial and Motion for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal, and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
Facts and Procedural History
On May 25, 2017, a Jefferson Parish Grand Jury indicted defendant, Corey Woods a/k/a "Cocomo," with three counts of second degree murder in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 (counts one, two, and three) and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (count four). Defendant was arraigned on June 12, 2017, and pled not guilty. On July 31, 2018, the case proceeded to trial; however, on August 1, 2018, the State and the defense moved for a mistrial, which the trial court granted. On November 5, 7, and 8, 2018, the case was tried before a twelve-person jury. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found defendant guilty as charged.
On December 2, 2018, defendant filed Motions for New Trial and for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal, a Motion for Appeal, and a Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence. On December 10, 2018, in a written order, the trial court granted the Motion for New Trial and ordered the trial to be held on January 7, 2019. Also on December 10, 2018, the trial court granted the Motion for Appeal. On that same date, the trial court set the Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence for hearing on January 7, 2019.
A new trial was not held on January 7, 2019, as ordered on December 10, 2018. On that date, the trial court denied the Motions for New Trial and for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal. Afterward, on that same date, the trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence each on counts one, two and three, with those sentences to run concurrently with each other. On count four, the trial court sentenced defendant to imprisonment at hard labor for twenty years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, with that sentence to run concurrently with the sentence on count one in case number 17-1037. The record does not reflect that the trial court ruled on defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence.
Discussion
Pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 916, a trial court is divested of jurisdiction upon the granting of a defendant's motion for an appeal. State v. Lampkin, 12-391 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13), 119 So.3d 158, 162 ; State v. Sims, 09-509 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/12/10), 33 So.3d 340, 343, writ denied, 10-0596 (La. 10/8/10), 46 So.3d 1264. Once the trial court is divested of jurisdiction, it may take only certain specified actions, none of which include ruling on a motion for a new trial or imposing a sentence. State v. Johnson, 13-75 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/9/13), 128 So.3d 325, 327. A defendant can appeal from a final judgment of conviction only when the sentence has been imposed. La. C.Cr.P. art. 912 ; State v. Calloway, 18-708 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/24/19), 271 So.3d 349, 351.
In State v. Calloway, supra , the defendant was convicted on June 13, 2018. On June 27, 2018, he filed a Motion for New Trial, a Motion for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal, and a Motion for Appeal. The next day, the trial court denied the Motion for New Trial and the Motion for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal and then granted the Motion for Appeal. Afterward, on that same day, the trial court sentenced the defendant. This Court found that upon the granting of the defendant's Motion for Appeal, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to subsequently sentence the defendant. On appeal, the defendant only raised sentencing issues. This Court vacated the defendant's sentences and remanded the matter for resentencing. It found that once the defendant had been resentenced, he had the right to appeal his convictions and sentences.
Here, upon the granting of defendant's Motion for Appeal on December 10, 2018, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to subsequently sentence defendant or to rule on defendant's Motion for New Trial and Motion for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal. In his Motions for New Trial and for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal, defendant argued that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, the same issue he raised in his post-trial motions.
Under these circumstances, where the trial court, after having been divested of jurisdiction, denied defendant's motion for a new trial, the substance of which he then raised on appeal, we find that a remand is proper. Before this Court, a court of review, addresses the merits of an issue that the trial court improperly considered, in light of due process considerations, defendant is entitled to have those merits considered by a trial court properly vested with jurisdiction. Consequently, we vacate the trial court's rulings on defendant's Motions for New Trial and for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal and the sentences imposed on defendant. We remand this matter to the trial court to rule on defendant's motions, and, if denied, to resentence defendant.
We find that the trial court's December 10, 2018 granting of defendant's Motion for New Trial was a ministerial error. First, the trial court set a new trial for January 7, 2019, but on that day, the trial court readdressed the Motion for New Trial and denied it. Second, the trial court sentenced defendant and also granted defendant's Motion for Appeal, further indicating that it did not intend for defendant to have a new trial. See, State v. Williams, 01-554 (La. 5/14/02), 817 So.2d 40. Regardless, the trial court's rulings on the Motion for New Trial and for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal are vacated for the reasons set forth herein.
--------
The above pretermits a discussion of defendant's assignments of error on appeal.
Decree
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the sentences imposed on defendant, as well as the trial court's rulings on defendant's Motion for New Trial and for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal, and remand this matter to the trial court to rule on defendant's motions, and, if denied, to resentence defendant. In the event defendant's motion for a new trial is denied, upon resentencing, defendant's right to appeal his conviction and sentences are reserved.