Opinion
No. 2008 KA 1667.
February 13, 2009.
APPEALED FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ST. MARY, STATE OF LOUISIANA TRIAL COURT NUMBER 04-165,136 HONORABLE LORI A. LANDRY, JUDGE PRESIDING.
J. Phil Haney, Walter J. Senette, Jeffrey J. Trosclair, Anthony J. Saleme, Jr. Franklin, LA, Attorneys for Appellee, State of Louisiana.
Thomas L. Mahfouz, David M. Thorguson, Morgan City, LA, Attorneys for Defendant/Appellant, Michael A. Watson.
Before: CARTER, C.J., WHIPPLE, and DOWNING, JJ.
The defendant, Michael A. Watson, was charged by separate grand jury indictments with two counts of negligent homicide, violations of LSA-R.S. 14:32. He pled not guilty to both counts. He waived his right to a jury trial and, following a bench trial, was found guilty as charged on both counts. He was sentenced to five years at hard labor, suspended, and five years of active, supervised probation subject to general and special conditions of probation, including serving six months in parish jail. He now appeals, contending in his sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in finding that the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to support the convictions.
Finding error herein under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920(2), which requires us to remand this matter for further proceedings, we pretermit consideration of the merits of the defendant's appeal. Specifically, the sentence imposed herein was improper, as the defendant's convictions on two counts of negligent homicide required the imposition of two separate sentences. The trial court, however, imposed only one sentence for both counts. A defendant can appeal from a final judgment of conviction only where a sentence has been imposed. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 912(C)(1); State v. Soco, 94-1099 (La.App. 1st Cir. 6/23/95), 657 So. 2d 603. Moreover, error under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920(2) occurs when a trial court, in sentencing on multiple counts, does not impose a separate sentence for each count.
Generally, in the absence of valid sentences, the defendant's appeal is not properly before this court. State v. Soco, 657 So. 2d at 603. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the trial court is vacated, and we remand this matter to the trial court for resentencing consistent with the views expressed herein. After resentencing, the defendant may perfect a new appeal.
In State v. Walder, 2006-1239 (La.App. 1st Cir. 12/28/06), 952 So. 2d 21, writ granted in part, denied in part, 2007-0198 (La. 10/5/07), 965 So. 2d 865 (per curiam), a case involving the imposition of a single sentence for the defendant's guilty pleas to 123 counts of aggravated cruelty to animals, this court addressed the merits of the defendant's challenge to the trial court's order that she pay approximately $46,679.00 in restitution, stating that, "[w]hile we normally would pretermit consideration of any assignments of error, because each of the errors assigned herein challenges the validity of the sentence, in the interest of judicial efficiency, we will consider them." Walder, 2006-1239 at p. 5, 952 So. 2d at 24. However, because the highly unusual circumstances in Walder are not present in the instant case, we find Walder to be readily distinguishable and inapposite herein.