Summary
In State ex rel. Simmons v. Stalder, 93-1852 (La. 1/26/96), 666 So.2d 661, the supreme court found that the trial court erred in pronouncing the defendant's habitual offender sentence without benefit of good time.
Summary of this case from State v. SamOpinion
No. 93-KH-1852
January 26, 1996
IN RE: Simmons, Tommy B.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writ; Parish of Orleans Criminal District Court Div. "A" Number 284-858.
Writ granted in part; otherwise denied. The sentenced imposed by the district court was flawed in two respects. First, any multiple offender sentence imposed under La.R.S. 15:529.1 following the offender's conviction for armed robbery must carry the parole disability provided by La.R.S. 14:64(B). State v. Bruins, 407 So.2d 685 (La. 1981). Second, the provisions of La.R.S. 15:571.3(C) are directed to the Department of Corrections exclusively. Thus, "the sentencing judge has no . . . role in the matter of good time credit, which is not part of the broad sentencing discretion granted to the trial judge." Jackson v. Phelps, 506 So.2d 515, 517-18 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1987), writ denied 508 So.2d 829 (La. 1987). See also State v. Parker, 573 So.2d 1253 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1991), writ denied, 577 So.2d 12 (La. 1991). The district court is therefore ordered to correct relator's sentence to reflect parole ineligibility, or to resentence him, and is further ordered to correct the sentence by removing the provision prohibiting relator from earning good time. See State v. Harris, 93-1098 (La. 1/5/96), ___ So.2d ___, cf. La.C.Cr.P. art 882. In all other respects the application is denied. See State ex rel. Martin v. State, 462 So.2d 637, 639 (La. 1985).
BJJ
PFC
WFM
JCW
HTL
CDK
JPV