Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Edward BELL
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1981-09-28
Citations: 404 So. 2d 974
Docket Number: Nos. 80-KA-2956, 81-KA-0292
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Edward BELL.
Judges: LEMMON, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 404
Pages: 974–976

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Edward BELL.
Nos. 80-KA-2956, 81-KA-0292.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Sept. 28, 1981.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., Shirley Wimberly, Steven Wimberly, Abbott J. Reeves, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.
Joseph Tosh, Gretna, for defendant-appellant.

Opinion:
WATKINS, Associate Justice Ad Hoc .
Defendant Edward Bell was charged with theft and receiving stolen property, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:67 and 14:69, respectively. These alleged offenses arose from an alleged single incident, viz. taking merchandise from Godchaux's Store, Lakeside Shopping Center, Jefferson Parish. Although a defendant may be charged with both offenses, theft and receiving stolen property, arising out of a single incident, he may be convicted of only one or the other. State v. Robertson, 386 So.2d 906 (La.1980); State v. Williams, 359 So.2d 115 (La.1978).
This case was tried by the judge. Although the language of the trial court in finding Bell guilty is ambiguous, we will assume that the trial court acted in accordance with the requirements of the two cited cases, Robertson and Williams, supra, and convicted Bell of but one offense, theft, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:67. Sentencing was deferred pending multiple billing, as defendant was a dual or multiple offender. A bill of information was subsequently filed in a separate proceeding charging Bell with being a multiple offender, having had four (4) prior felony convictions. The theft conviction is before us as 81-KA-0292 and the multiple billing is before us as 80-KA-2956.
Defendant's counsel appeared in open court in the multiple billing proceeding and acknowledged that defendant was a second offender. No mention was made of the bill charging four prior offenses. We are uncertain whether defense counsel's acknowl-edgement of one prior offense was the result of error on the part of all concerned or the result of plea bargaining.
In any event, the trial court sentenced defendant as a multiple offender to two terms of two years imprisonment at hard labor, to run consecutively. The sentence was clearly improper. Defendant was convicted of having stolen merchandise worth $443.00. Under LSA-R.S. 14:67 the maximum sentence for theft in that amount would have been two years at hard labor had defendant been sentenced for theft. If defendant had indeed been convicted of four prior felonies, the minimum correct sentence for a multiple offender with four prior felony convictions was 20 years at hard labor. Only if defendant had had but one prior felony conviction would 4 years imprisonment have been a correct sentence. See LSA-R.S. 15:529.1. Even if 4 years imprisonment was the proper sentence, considering the acknowledgement of one prior conviction by defendant's counsel, still that sentence should have been imposed as one single sentence of 4 years, not as two consecutive 2 year sentences. There should have been but one sentence, for double or multiple felonies. No separate sentence should have been imposed for theft, nor do we interpret the trial court's sentencing to sentence separately for theft and dual or multiple felonies. In any event, a sentence of two consecutive terms of two years for a single offense, viz. being a dual or multiple offender, was clearly improper.
Defense counsel contends that photographs of the merchandise allegedly stolen were improperly introduced, when the best evidence was the merchandise itself. We cannot agree with this contention. Under LSA-R.S. 15:436.1 photographs of alleged objects of theft may be introduced if otherwise admissible, without regard to the availability of the property itself. See also State v. Dilworth, 358 So.2d 1254 (La.1978). The photographs not having been inadmissible for any other reason, they were properly admitted.
The store detective, Barnes, and a security officer, Newman, both testified as to the value of the merchandise stolen. Defendant contends that the testimony as to the value of the stolen goods was opinion testimony and inadmissible, as neither witness had qualified as an expert. However, the values of the merchandise were determined by looking at the price tags on the objects allegedly stolen. The witnesses were thus testifying as to facts, not giving opinion testimony.
Defendant's sole assignments of error were that the photographs of the merchandise were improperly admitted in evidence, and that testimony as to the value of the merchandise was improperly admitted. Neither of these assignments of error has merit, as we have indicated. However, an error which is discoverable upon a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings may be considered by the court on appeal. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920(2). As we have noted, it is apparent that the entire sentencing process on the multiple billing is flawed. It is impossible to determine whether defendant was sentenced as having had four prior felony convictions, or one, and if the sentencing is indeed for four prior offenses, it is of incorrect duration. Nor should the sentencing have been for two consecutive terms, as the multiple felony statute contemplates a single sentence, not consecutive sentences.
For the reasons set forth, we affirm the conviction but vacate the sentence and remand the case for reimposition of sentence in accordance with the views expressed herein.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED AND SET ASIDE AND CASE REMANDED.
LEMMON, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Judges Grover L. Covington, Luther F. Cole and J. Louis Watkins, Jr. of the First Circuit Court of Appeal participated in this decision as Asso-date Justices Ad Hoc, joined by Chief Justice Dixon and Associate Justices Marcus, Blanche and Lemmon.