Case Name: STATE of Louisiana, Relator, v. Salvatore A. BATTAGLIA and Jack Reynier, Respondents
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1979-11-01
Citations: 377 So. 2d 264
Docket Number: No. 64817
Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Relator, v. Salvatore A. BATTAGLIA and Jack Reynier, Respondents.
Judges: TATE, J., concurs and assigns written reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 377
Pages: CCCXLIV–CCCXLVIII

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana, Relator, v. Salvatore A. BATTAGLIA and Jack Reynier, Respondents.
No. 64817.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Nov. 1, 1979.
Samuel S. Dalton, Jefferson, for defendant-respondent Jack Reynier.
Craig J. Cimo, Gretna, for defendant-respondent Salvatore A. Battaglia.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-relator.

Opinion:
DIXON, Justice.
Defendants, Battaglia and Reynier, were charged in a grand jury indictment with distribution of heroin in April, 1975. Found guilty as charged by jury on February 17, 1976, they were sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor on March 18, 1976. Both appealed.
While the appeals were pending a motion for resentencing was filed, and came before the trial court on May 31, 1979. The court noted that it retained jurisdiction "to correct an illegal sentence," and suspended the life sentences, placing defendants on three years probation, with certain conditions.
Writs were granted on application by the state to review its contention that the sentences of mandatory life imprisonment were not illegal, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to change the sentences. C.Cr.P. 882 and 916(3).
At the time the district court imposed these sentences, R.S. 40:966(B)(1), Acts 1973, No. 207 provided that upon conviction for distribution of heroin, "[a] person . shall be sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor." R.S. 40:966 did not, as it does now, expressly prohibit the suspension of sentence for heroin distribution. The trial judge had imposed life sentences with great reluctance, unaware that it was within his discretion to suspend the sentences. Thereafter, even though the appeals were pending, the trial court, on motion of defendants, vacated the sentences he had previously imposed, as noted.
The trial judge considered that, although an appeal had been filed by defendants, under the provisions of C.Cr.P. 916(3), jurisdiction was still vested in the trial court to correct an illegal sentence under C.Cr.P. 882, which allows an illegal sentence to be corrected any time by the court that imposed the sentence. The trial judge in part relied upon State v. Terriault, 369 So.2d 125 (La. 1979). There, we held that a sentence imposing the maximum sentence of imprisonment provided by the statute should be vacated and the case remanded to the district court for resentencing because the trial court did not state the reasons necessary to afford this court an opportunity to review the defendant's contention of exces-siveness constitutionally afforded him by La.Const. of 1974, Art. 1, Sec. 20.
This case presents a different issue; the trial judge with no direction from this court amended his original sentences. The question to be determined is whether the sentences imposed were illegal and could therefore be corrected at any time by the trial court under C.Cr.P. 882. The original sentences imposed by the trial judge, however, were not illegal; they were authorized and directed by R.S. 40:966. State v. Johnson, 220 La. 64, 55 So.2d 782 (1951); State ex rel. Hebert v. Henderson, 290 So.2d 832 (La. 1974).
Although the sentences imposed by the trial judge were legal, C.Cr.P. 881 authorizes the court to amend or change a legal sentence prior to the beginning of execution of the sentence. That authority to amend a legal sentence prior to the beginning of execution of the sentence is limited by C.Cr.P. 916, which divests the trial court of jurisdiction upon the entering of the order of appeal. One of the exceptions recognized in 916(3) allows the trial court to retain jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence, or reduce a legal sentence in accordance with C.Cr.P. 913(B). Article 913(B) authorizes the trial court to amend a sentence to grant credit for time served pending appeal, when the defendant is held without bail. These legal sentences do not fall within the exceptions of 916(3): therefore the defendants, by filing appeals, divested the trial court of its jurisdiction necessary to amend their sentences under C.Cr.P. 881.
It might be argued that, if the district judge lacked the jurisdiction to amend the sentences (and suspend them), he likewise lacked the jurisdiction to vacate the previously imposed life sentences. It is apparent that the trial judge is of the opinion that the life sentences are excessive, and were imposed under a mistake of law. In the interest of justice and efficiency we deem it appropriate in this case to vacate all prior sentences and remand the case for resen-tencing.
Accordingly, the amended sentences of defendants are vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing in accordance with R.S. 40:966 as it read at the time of the original sentencing.
TATE, J., concurs and assigns written reasons.
CALOGERO, J., concurs.
DENNIS, J., concurs for reasons assigned by TATE, J.
. Although the sentence in Terriault was imposed prior to the effective date of C.Cr.P. 894.1 (1977) which requires the trial judge to set forth the considerations and the factual basis for the sentence, this court felt that a compliance with 894.1 was necessary before it could review defendant's contention of exces-siveness.
. The Official Revision Comment, C.Cr.P. 881, suggests that to allow a trial judge the power to reduce a legal sentence after the beginning of its execution would constitute the judge a "one man pardon board."