Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Harold G. RANDOLPH and Clarence Randolph
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1981-12-04
Citations: 409 So. 2d 554
Docket Number: No. 81-KA-1176
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Harold G. RANDOLPH and Clarence Randolph.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 409
Pages: 554–555

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Harold G. RANDOLPH and Clarence Randolph.
No. 81-KA-1176.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Dec. 4, 1981.
On Rehearing Feb. 5, 1982.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Judith Lom-bardino, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-ap-pellee.
Milton P. Masinter, William J. O’Hare, III, Michael S. Gallagher, Perry St. Raymond, for defendants-appellants.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendants were charged together by bill of information with simple burglary in violation of La.R.S. 14:62. After trial by jury on November 6,1979, they were both found guilty as charged. Thereafter, the state filed an information against Clarence Randolph under the multiple offender provisions of La.R.S. 15:529.1. On the same day, November 16,1979, counsel for Harold Randolph filed a motion for a new trial urging several grounds for setting aside the jury's verdict with respect to his client. On January 30, 1980, the defendants then came before the trial court for sentencing. The court sentenced Clarence Randolph as a second offender to twenty-four (24) years' imprisonment at hard labor and his brother Harold to twelve (12) years' imprisonment, also at hard labor. Defendants have now appealed their convictions and sentences to this Court, requesting a review of the record for errors patent.
We have reviewed the pleadings and proceedings in this case, and find no error with regard to the conviction and sentence of Clarence Randolph. However, counsel for Harold Randolph has called our attention to an error in his defendant's sentencing. The minutes do not reflect that the trial court ruled on the application for a new trial before the hearing on January 30, 1980. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 853 provides in this regard that "[a] motion for a new trial must be filed and disposed of before sentence." [emphasis supplied] Counsel has alleged no specific prejudice arising out of the apparent failure of the trial court to rule on the motion. See, State v. White, 404 So.2d 1202 (La.1981). Nevertheless, it is preferred, and Art. 853 requires, that the trial judge rule on the merits of an application for a new trial before imposing sentence on defendant. Therefore, while we affirm Clarence Randolph's conviction and sentence, we vacate the sentence of Harold Randolph and remand his case to the trial court for consideration of the new trial motion. In the event of an unfavorable ruling on the motion, and resentencing, we reserve to defendant his right to appeal his conviction and sentence once more to this Court.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF CLARENCE RANDOLPH AFFIRMED.
SENTENCE OF HAROLD RANDOLPH VACATED AND CASE REMANDED.