This determination renders Mr. Biddy's third assignment of error, challenging the excessiveness of his sentence, premature. See State v. Allen, 99–2579, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 781 So.2d 88, 94. A trial court's failure to determine a motion to reconsider sentence, however, does not preclude review of the conviction.
Allen appealed, and this court affirmed his conviction for aggravated sexual battery but remanded the case to the trial court for consideration of the motion to reconsider the sentence. State v. Allen, 99-2579 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 781 So.2d 88. At a hearing on March 14, 2001, the motion for reconsideration of sentence was denied.
Nor does the possibility that a trial court's ruling will be upheld on appeal render a plea under Crosby any less voluntary. Present counsel's argument ignores the fact that the appellant pled guilty under Crosbyand under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970), wherein he did not admit his guilt, but rather entered the plea because it was in his best interest to do so. Indeed, in State v. Allen, 99-2579 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 781 So.2d 88, this court noted that in order to accept a valid Alford plea the trial court must only "satisfy itself that a factual basis exists for charging the defendant . . . ; that the defendant has entered and maintains his no contest plea to the reduced charge; and, that that plea represents a knowing, voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives open to him. Alford, supra; Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).
4 Cir. 9/11/02), 828 So.2d 72, 74; State v. Ferrand, 2003–1746 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/14/04), 866 So.2d 322; State v. Allen, 99–2579 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 781 So.2d 88. The trial court's failure to rule on the motion to reconsider sentence does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's conviction.
4 Cir. 1/14/04), 866 So.2d 322; State v. McQun, 2002-0259 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/19/02), 828 So.2d 598; State v. Allen, 99-2579 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 781 So.2d 88. As this Court noted in State v. Temple, 2000-2183 (La.App.
4 Cir. 1/14/04), 866 So.2d 322 (conviction affirmed, remanded for ruling on motion to reconsider); State v. Davis, 2000-0275 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/14/01), 781 So.2d 633 (conviction affirmed, remanded for ruling on motion to reconsider); State v. Allen, 99-2579 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 781 So.2d 88 (conviction affirmed, remanded for ruling on motion to reconsider). Accordingly, we remand this matter only for a ruling on the motion to reconsider sentence.
4 Cir. 1/14/04), 866 So. 2d 322 (conviction affirmed, remanded for ruling on motion to reconsider); State v. Davis, 2000-0275 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/14/01), 781 So. 2d 633 (conviction affirmed, remanded for ruling on motion to reconsider); State v. Allen, 99-2579 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 781 So. 2d 88 (conviction affirmed, remanded for ruling on motion to reconsider). Accordingly, we remand this matter only for a ruling on the motion to reconsider sentence.
4 Cir. 1/14/04), 866 So.2d 322; State v. McQun, 2002-0259 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/19/02), 828 So.2d 598; State v. Allen, 99-2579 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 781 So.2d 88. The defendant filed his motion to reconsider sentence within thirty days of sentencing, and apparently the court never ruled on the motion. As this Court noted in State v. Temple, 2000-2183 (La.App.
4 Cir. 1/23/02), 807 So.2d 1072, where this court stated that without a final sentence a conviction is not appealable); see also State v. Davis, 20000-0275 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/14/01), 781 So.2d 633 (conviction affirmed, remanded for ruling on motion to reconsider); State v. Allen, 99-2579 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 781 So.2d 88 (conviction affirmed, remanded for ruling on motion to reconsider). ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
4 Cir. 9/11/02), 828 So.2d 72, 74; see also State v. Davis, 2000-0275 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/14/01), 781 So.2d 633 (conviction affirmed, remanded for ruling on motion to reconsider); State v. Allen, 99-2579 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 781 So.2d 88 (conviction affirmed, remanded for ruling on motion to reconsider). In a single assignment of error, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.