Case Name: STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Don MOSELEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2002-10-23
Citations: 830 So. 2d 354
Docket Number: No. 36,550-KA
Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Don MOSELEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BROWN, PEATROSS and HARRISON (Pro Tempore), JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 830
Pages: 354–356

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Don MOSELEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 36,550-KA.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Oct. 23, 2002.
Rollin W. Cole, Jr., for DefendanL-Ap-pellant.
Richard Ieyoub, Attorney General, James M. Bullers, District Attorney, C. Sherburne Sentell, III, Louis Charles Mi-nifield, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.
Before BROWN, PEATROSS and HARRISON (Pro Tempore), JJ.

Opinion:
|! HARRISON, Judge Pro Tempore.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Jerry Don Moseley entered a guilty plea to three counts of aggravated incest, a violation of La. R.S. 14:78.1. Moseley appeals his sentence as excessive. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the convictions but vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing in accordance with the law.
Facts
Moseley and Cammy McAdams married and had three children together. McAdams also had a daughter from a prior relationship, S.W. During the period September 1997 through May 1998, Moseley and Mc-Adams were legally separated and Moseley had weekend visitation rights to all four of the children. Moseley confessed that over this time he engaged in sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter, S.W., on at least three occasions while he was exercising his child visitation rights. She was born on October 1, 1985 and was, therefore, 11 years old during a portion of the applicable time period when he was engaging in prohibited sexual acts.
Moseley was indicted for the aggravated rape of S.W., in violation of La. R.S. 14:42 A(4). The state notified the defense of its intent to seek the death penalty. Through a plea bargain, Moseley entered a plea of guilty to three counts of aggravated incest, violations of La. R.S. 14:78.1 which are individually punishable by a fine not to exceed $50,000, or imprisonment, with or without hard labor, for a term not less than five years, nor more than 20 years, or both. On each count the district court imposed a sentence of twenty years at hard labor, ten years of which to be served without benefit 1 aof parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, or good time, pursuant to La. R.S. 15:587. The court also imposed, on each count, a fine of $1000 plus costs, with one year default time, and ordered Moseley to pay for all of S.W.'s counseling. The court directed that the sentences on counts one and two be served consecutively, and that the sentence on count three be served concurrently. Thereafter, Moseley filed a timely motion for reconsideration of sentence, which was denied and this appeal follows.
Discussion
Defendant's sole assignment of error is that his sentence is excessive and that the sentences on all three counts should be served concurrently. He points out his remorse for his conduct and the absence of a previous criminal history as mitigation.
The record is replete with sufficient facts to support Moseley's convictions. Accordingly, the convictions are affirmed.
Due to error patent, we do not address Moseley's sentencing claims. At the time of the offense, it was entirely within the trial court's discretion to deny good time, pursuant to La. R.S. 15:537. See, State v. Frith, 30,555 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/8/98), 711 So.2d 388. The statute of conviction, La. R.S. 14:78.1, does not provide for the denial of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. , As two other courts have already noted, "A sentence upon a conviction of aggravated incest, La. R.S. 78.1, is not required to be served without these benefits." State v. Terrebonne, 2001-2632 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/21/02), 822 So.2d 149; State v. May, 00-43 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/17/00), 760 ┴3So.2d 1260. However, under La. R.S. 15:538 A and B, the denial of Moseley's eligibility for probation, parole, or suspension of sentence is self-executing unless he is prohibited from engaging in certain work which would expose him to minor children.
Although La.C.Cr.P. art. 882 grants a reviewing court the authority to correct an illegal sentence, we believe a remand is more appropriate than simply deleting the without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence language. Accordingly, we vacate the sentences and remand for the district court's exercise of its full sentencing discretion in accordance with the law.
Conclusion
The convictions are affirmed. The sentences are vacated. The matter is re manded to the district court for re-sentencing.
CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED.
BROWN, C.J., concurs with written reasons.
. We note that La. R.S. 15:537 A was amended in 2001 to mandate the denial of good time to certain enumerated sex offenders. However, the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense is determinative of the penalty which the accused must suffer. State v. Wright, 384 So.2d 399 (La. 1980).