Summary
holding that "[t]o the extent that the amendment of defendant's sentence entails more than a ministerial correction of a sentencing error, the decision in State v. Williams , 00-1725 (La. 11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, does not sanction the sua sponte correction made by the court of appeal on defendant's appeal of his conviction and sentence"
Summary of this case from State v. SandiferOpinion
No. 2004-K-1893.
December 10, 2004.
In re Haynes, Thomas; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, Nos. 8-02-772; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KA 2023.
Granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded for resentencing. The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed only insofar as it amended defendant's sentence to include a fine in the maximum amount of $5,000. R.S. 14:95.1(B) provides for a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000. Because the amount of the fine lies in the trial court's discretion, the court of appeal exceeded the scope of error patent review by amending the amount sua sponte instead of remanding the case to the trial court for resentencing. To the extent that the amendment of defendant's sentence entails more than a ministerial correction of a sentencing error, the decision in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La. 11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, does not sanction the sua sponte correction made by the court of appeal on defendant's appeal of his conviction and sentence.