Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. McArthur DAVIS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1973-05-07
Citations: 278 So. 2d 130
Docket Number: No. 53070
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. McArthur DAVIS.
Judges: CALOGERO, J., concurs with reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 278
Pages: 130–132

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. McArthur DAVIS.
No. 53070.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 7, 1973.
Anderson, Leithead, Scott, Boudreau & Savoy, Robert J. Boudreau and Edward D. Myrick, Lake Charles, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank T. Salter, Jr., Dist. Atty., Charles W. Richard, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appel-lee.

Opinion:
MARCUS, Justice:
The defendant, MacArthur Davis, was convicted after a trial by jury of distributing a controlled dangerous substance drug, heroin, in violation of R.S. 40:971 (a)(1). He was sentenced to serve twenty-five years in the Louisiana State Penitentiary and on this appeal relies upon two bills of exceptions reserved and perfected in order to obtain reversal of his conviction and sentence.
Before a consideration of the bills reserved, we note that the minutes of court reflect that sentence was imposed prior to the expiration of the mandatory three-day period between conviction and sentence as required in Article 873, Code of Criminal Procedure. The defendant was found guilty on October 24, 1972, by jury verdict, and sentence was imposed on October 27, 1972. No waiver of the delay appears either in the minute entry or in the record.
Article 873 C.Cr.P. provides that: "If a defendant is convicted of a felony, at least three days shall elapse between conviction and sentence. "
The computation of time for delays or other acts provided for in Article 13 C.Cr. P. has been interpreted in State v. Augustine, No. 52,517, Nov. 28, 1972, in regard to the three-day delay between conviction and sentence contained in Article 873 C. Cr.P. It was there concluded that the statutory intent reflected in Article 873 is that after the date of the sentence, three days must elapse before the sentence may be imposed. Thus, in Augustine, since the date of conviction was May 24 and the sentence was imposed on May 27, this Court held it was prematurely imposed, annulled the sentence and remanded the case for resentenc-ing.
Article 920(2) permits review by this Court of any error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence.
The error hereinabove noted is patent on the face of the record. Accordingly, we take notice of same ex proprio motu.
For the reasons assigned, the sentence is annulled and set aside, and the case is remanded to the Fourteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Calcasieu for re-sentencing in conformity with law.
CALOGERO, J., concurs with reasons.
BARHAM, J., dissents and assigns reasons.