Court Opinion

ID: 9840219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 16:06:00.752333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:11:29.739611
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                              STATE OF LOUISIANA

                               COURT OF APPEAL

                                FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 2023 KA 0072

                              STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                   VERSUS

                              JASON LEON GRIFFIN

                              DATE QF JUDGMENT:       SEP 15 2023

 ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
                PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY, STATE OF LOUISIANA
                         NUMBER 53052020, DIVISION H

                 HONORABLE ALAN A. ZAUNBRECHER, JUDGE

Warren LeDoux Montgomery                 Counsel for Plaintiff A
                                                               - ppellee
District Attorney                        State of Louisiana
Matthew Caplan

Assistant District Attorney
Covington, Louisiana

Gwendolyn K. Brown                       Counsel for Defendant -Appellant
Baton Rouge, Louisiana                   Jason Leon Griffin

                 BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ

Disposition:   SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED TO DISTRICT COURT FOR
RESENTENCING.
CHUTZ, J.

          The defendant, Jason Leon Griffin, was charged by bill of information with

possession with intent to distribute a schedule I controlled dangerous substance

 CDS) ( heroin) ( count I), a violation of La. R.S. 40: 966( A)( 1) & (                B)( 3);   and

possession with intent to distribute a schedule II CDS ( methamphetamine), weight

more than twenty- eight grams ( count II), a violation of La. R. S. 40: 967( A)( 1) &

B)( 1)(   b), I He pled not guilty on both counts. Following a jury trial, the defendant

was found guilty as charged on both counts by unanimous verdicts. On count 1, he

was sentenced to twenty years at hard labor.              On count II, he was sentenced to a

concurrent term of twenty years at hard labor.

          Thereafter, the State filed a habitual offender bill of information against the

defendant, alleging he was a fourth -felony habitual offender on both counts.'                   The

defendant denied the allegations.          Following a hearing, he was adjudged a fourth -

felony habitual offender on both counts, the court vacated the " sentence" imposed,

and sentenced the defendant to forty years at hard labor without benefit of

probation or suspension of sentence.            The defendant now appeals, contending the

district court erred in overruling the Batson'                objection   to   the   exclusion    of

prospective juror Dayna Finley and in denying the motion for new trial predicated

upon the denial of the Batson objection. However, this court has noticed patent

1 Kaci L. Giovengo, Jermaine L. Griffin, and Anthony Michael Glazier were also charged under
the bill of information.

 The Habitual Offender Bill of Information listed the defendant' s convictions on counts I and II,
three predicate offenses, and concluded, " The    said defendant is one and the same person who
was previously convicted in the listed case number( s) and should now be sentenced in
conformity with the provisions of La. R.S. 15: 529. 1."

Predicate 41 was set forth as the defendant' s January 5, 2000 conviction, under Twenty -Second
Judicial District Court Docket # 305294, for distribution of an imitation schedule II CDS, for
which supervision ended on February 25, 2005. Predicate 42 was set forth as the defendant' s
August 31, 2011 conviction, under Twenty -Second Judicial District Court Docket # 451999, for
distribution of Schedule II CDS, for which supervision ended on July 4, 2016. Predicate # 3 was
set forth as the defendant' s October 17, 2017 conviction, under Twenty -Second Judicial District
Court Docket # 588025, for possession or introduction of contraband in a state correctional
institution, for which the defendant received a ten- year sentence.

3 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79, 93- 98, 106 S. Ct, 1712, 1721-1724, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 ( 1986).
                                                  2
error on the face of the record that requires us to remand this matter for further

proceedings before we can consider the defendant' s appeal.             For the following

reasons, we vacate the sentence and remand with instructions.

                               REVIEW FOR ERROR

       Initially, we note that our review for error is pursuant to La. C. Cr.P. art. 920,

which provides that the only matters to be considered on appeal are errors designated

in the assignments of error and " error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the

pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence."

       The defendant' s convictions for possession with intent to distribute heroin

and   possession   with   intent   to   distribute more than twenty- eight grams         of

methamphetamine required the imposition of two separate sentences, but only one

sentence of forty years at hard labor without benefit of probation or suspension of

sentence was imposed.         A sentencing error occurs when a district court, in

sentencing for multiple counts, does not impose a separate sentence for each count.

State v. Mayo, 2012- 0707 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 617113), 2013 WL 2490361, at * 1.          In

the instant matter, the district court' s failure to impose separate sentences for counts I

and II was a sentencing error.     See Mayo, 2013 WL 2490361, at * 1; State v Soeo,

94- 1099 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6123195), 657 So.2d 603.

       It is well settled that a defendant can appeal from a final judgment of

conviction only where a sentence has been imposed. See La. C. Cr.P. art. 912( C)( 1);

Mayo, 2013 WL 2490361, at * 1.          In the absence of valid sentences, the defendant' s

appeal is not properly before this court. Mayo, 2013 WL 2490361, at * 1. Therefore,

we do not consider the defendant' s assignments of error, as they are not properly

before us.   Accordingly, the incorrect sentence imposed by the district court is

vacated, and the matter is remanded for resentencing with instructions that the district

court impose a separate sentence for each conviction. We further order the district

court to specifically provide in the sentences that they are being enhanced pursuant to

                                               3
the defendant' s adjudication as a fourth -felony habitual offender.   See Mayo, 2013

WL 2490361, at * 1.   After resentencing, the defendant may perfect a new appeal.

                                      DECREE

      For these reasons, we vacate the sentence of defendant, Jason Leon Griffin,

and remand for resentencing.

    SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED TO DISTRICT COURT
FOR RESENTENCING.

                                          4