Defendant's sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing because the sentence was imposed before the motions were disposed of in violation of La.C.Cr.P. arts. 821, 853 and 873. State v. Randolph, 409 So.2d 554 (La. 1981); State v. Smith, 553 So.2d 934 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1989).

4 Cir. 1/26/00), 753 So.2d 321, 324, this Court noted that the trial court's failure to rule on the defendant's timely-filed motions for new trial, post-verdict judgment of acquittal, and in arrest of judgment until after sentencing constituted an error patent. This Court, citing State v. Randolph, 409 So.2d 554, 555 (La.1981), held that the error required that the sentence be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing. In Randolph, the Louisiana Supreme Court acknowledged that the defendant had alleged no prejudice, but the Court stated that it is preferred, and La.C.Cr.P. art. 853 requires, that the trial court rule on a motion for new trial prior to sentencing.

This assertion of law is supported by the fact that it is error patent to hold a habitual offender hearing before resolving a pending motion for new trial. State v. Randolph, 409 So.2d 554 (La. 1991[1981]); State v. Washington, 98-0583 (La.App. 4th Cir. 11/17/99), 747 So.2d 1191. Likewise, when a motion for new trial is based on new evidence, the motion may be filed within one year after verdict or judgment of the trial court.

Case remanded to district court to rule on defendant's motion for a new trial before imposing sentence. La. Code Crim.P. art. 853; State v. Randolph, 409 So.2d 554 (La. 1982). Trial judge also ordered to rule on defendant's motion for return of personal property.

When such motions are filed but not disposed of before sentencing, the sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for disposition of the motions before resentencing. State v. Townsend, 94-658 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/7/94); 647 So.2d 535; State v. Randolph, 409 So.2d 554 (La.1981); El-Mumit v. Twenty-First Judicial District Court, 500 So.2d 414 (La.1987). Although the motion for new trial was eventually ruled upon, it was not ruled upon until after sentence was imposed.

The trial court erred by failing to rule on defendant’s timely pro se motion for new trial prior to sentencing. In State v. Randolph, 409 So.2d 554 (La. 1981), the Louisiana Supreme Court dealt with the trial court’s failure to rule on a defendant’s new trial motion by vacating his sentence, remanding the case to the trial court for a ruling, and reserving the defendant’s right to appeal his conviction and sentence in the event of an unfavorable ruling on the motion. This Court has acted similarly when the record contains a motion for new trial which was never ruled upon by the trial court.

State v. Christian , 05-635 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/3/06), 924 So.2d 266, 267. In State v. Randolph, 409 So.2d 554 (La. 1981), (per curiam )(on rehearing, 1982) the Louisiana Supreme Court dealt with the trial court's failure to rule on a defendant's new trial motion by vacating his sentence and remanding the case to the trial court for a ruling. The high court reserved to the defendant his right to appeal his conviction and sentence in the event of an unfavorable ruling on the motion.

Failure to do so requires the sentence to be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. State v. Randolph, 409 So. 2d 554 (La. 1981); State v. Jackson, 614 So. 2d 783 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1993); State v. Thomas, 50,085 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/1/15), 166 So. 3d 379. Accordingly, the defendant's sentence is hereby vacated, the appeal is dismissed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

When such motions are filed but not disposed of before sentencing, the sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for disposition of the motions before resentencing. State v. Townsend, 94–658 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/7/94); 647 So.2d 535; State v. Randolph, 409 So.2d 554 (La.1981); El–Mumit v. Twenty–First Judicial District Court, 500 So.2d 414 (La.1987). Although the motion for new trial was eventually ruled upon, it was not ruled upon until after sentence was imposed.

The failure of the trial court to rule on the motions is an error to be considered under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920(2) and requires that the sentence be vacated. See State v. Randolph, 409 So. 2d 554 (La. 1981) (per curiam); State v. Cockerham, 2012-0465 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/14/12), 111 So. 3d 384, 385-86; State v. Camou, 633 So. 2d 357, 358 (La. App, 1st Cir. 1993).