Opinion
NO. 23-KA-451
10-19-2023
STATE of Louisiana v. Jamar WILLIAMS
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Jude G. Gravois, and Scott U. Schlegel
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTYFOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, NO. 22-4205, DIVISION "N", HONORABLE STEPHEN D. ENRIGHT, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Jude G. Gravois, and Scott U. Schlegel
SCHLEGEL, J.
1Defendant/appellant, Jamar Williams, filed this appeal following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, adjudication as a third felony offender and sentencing. Based on our review of the record, we vacate defendant’s sentence and remand this matter to the trial court to rule on defendant’s pro se motion for new trial filed on June 19, 2023.
On October 21, 2022, defendant was charged with two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On May 22, 2023, a jury found defendant guilty on Count 1 and not guilty on Count 2. Defendant’s counsel filed a motion for new trial on May 30, 2023, which the trial court denied on June 15, 2023. On June 19, 2023, defendant filed a pro se motion for new trial including new arguments not raised in the counseled motion for new trial. The transcript from the June 15, 2023 hearing does not include any reference to defendant’s pro se motion and does not include a discussion of the new arguments raised in the motion. Also, the record does not contain a ruling or disposition by the trial court on defendant’s pro se motion for new trial. It is likely, though, that the trial court was not aware of the filing of the motion for new trial as defendant failed to include an order to set the motion for hearing.
Our review of the official record indicates that defendant included a cover letter with his pro se motion for new trial dated June 9, 2023, and the envelope containing the motion was postmarked June 14, 2023.
On July 18, 2023, the trial court sentenced defendant to seven years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The State then filed a multiple offender bill on the same day and defendant pled guilty to being a third felony offender. The trial court vacated defendant’s original sentence and sentenced defendant pursuant to La. R.S. 15:529.1 to imprisonment at hard labor for 15 years without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
2La. C.Cr.P. art. 853 provides that a motion for a new trial must be filed and disposed of before sentencing. 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. See State v. Munson, 11-54 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/15/11), 78 So.3d 290, 292; State v. James, 18-212 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/28/18), 259 So.3d 1255, 1256.
Such error is noticeable on the face of the record and reviewable as a patent error.
Therefore, we vacate defendant’s sentence and remand to the trial court for a ruling or disposition on defendant’s pro se motion for new trial, reserving defendant’s right to appeal his conviction, multiple offender adjudication, and sentence in the event that the ruling on the motion is adverse to defendant.
SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS