A defendant cannot appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement which was set forth in the record at the time of the plea. La. C.Cr. P. art. 881.2A(2); State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.App. 5 Cir. 02/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, 78, writ denied, 11–509 (La.09/30/11), 71 So.3d 280; State v. Cross, 06–866 (La.App. 5 Cir. 04/11/07), 958 So.2d 28, 30. Therefore, a defendant is precluded from raising a claim of excessiveness on appeal when the [ 9] imposed sentence is the product of a plea agreement.
STATE of Louisianav.Crystal REED.Prior report: La.App., 61 So.3d 74. In re Reed, Crystal;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 06–3226; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10–KA–527.
forth in the record at the time of the plea.” See also State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, 78, writ denied, 11–509 (La.9/30/11), 71 So.3d 280; State v. Cross, 06–866 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/11/07), 958 So.2d 28, 30. This Court also has applied La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.2(A)(2) to cases in which a defendant admits to the allegations in a habitual offender bill of information as part of a sentencing agreement. State v. Bolton, 02–1034 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/03), 844 So.2d 135, 142, writ denied, 03–1159 (La.11/14/03), 858 So.2d 417.
However, a defendant may be allowed appellate review if, at the time he enters a guilty plea, he expressly reserves his right to appeal a specific adverse ruling in the case. State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, 77,writ denied,11–509 (La.9/30/11), 71 So.3d 280. In the instant case, the record does not reflect that defendant tendered his guilty pleas pursuant to Crosby, or that he reserved his right to appeal any pre-trial rulings under Crosby when he pled guilty. Accordingly, defendant waived his right to appellate review of the denial of his motion to quash.
Nevertheless, when a criminal statute requires that all or portion of a sentence be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, La. R.S. 15:301.1(A) self-activates the correction and eliminates the need to remand for a ministerial correction. State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.2/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, 78. Thus, no corrective action is necessary. .La. R.S. 15:301.1(A) provides, in pertinent part: “The failure of a sentencing court to specifically state that all or a portion of the sentence is to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence shall not in any way affect the statutory requirement that all or a portion of the sentence be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.”
FN16. State v. Wingerter, 05–697, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/14/06), 926 So.2d 662. FN17. State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, writ denied, 11–0509 (La.9/30/11), 71 So.3d 280. FN18. State v. Allen, 03–2156 (La.App.
4. State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, 77. 5.
A defendant may be allowed appellate review, if, at the time he enters a guilty plea, he expressly reserves his right to appeal a specific adverse ruling in the case. State v. Reed, 10–527 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/11), 61 So.3d 74, 77. A defendant who fails to specify which pre-trial ruling he wishes to reserve for appeal as part of a guilty plea entered under Crosby is not precluded from review altogether, but his appellate review may be limited in scope. State v. Richardson, 09–714 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/9/10), 33 So.3d 903, 906–07, writ denied, 10–0526 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1109.