Court Opinion

ID: 9891577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 21:06:26.072578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:23.294270
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                        COURT OF APPEAL

                                         FIRST CIRCUIT

                                         2023 KA 0221

                                   STATE OF LOUISIANA
        vr

   Z/                                       VERSUS

                                         JAMES BISHOP

                                                JUDGMENT RFNDL•'
                                                              REll:      OCT 18 2023

                Appealed from The Twenty -Second Judicial District Court
                            Parish of St. Tammany • State of Louisiana
                               Docket Number 611, 058 • Division G

                        The Honorable Scott Gardner, Presiding Judge

        Bertha Moseley Hillman                            COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
        Louisiana Appellate Project                       DEFENDANT—, lames Bishop
        Covington, Louisiana

        Warren L. Montgomery                              COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
        District Attorney                                 State of Louisiana
        Matthew Caplan
        J. Bryant Clark, Jr.
        Assistant District Attorneys
        Covington, Louisiana

                  BEFORE: WELCH, HOLDRIDGE, AND WOLFE, JJ.

Un far. J.,
          rAc 4
                1              rJaof)
WELCH, J.

          The State of Louisiana charged the defendant, James Bishop, by grand jury

indictment with first degree rape of a victim under the age of thirteen years ( T.Z.')

 count I), a violation of La. R.S. 14: 42( A)(4); molestation of a juvenile (T.Z.) ( count

II), a violation of La. R.S. 14: 81. 2( A)( 1), (       B)( 2) and ( C); production of pornography

involving j uveniles (count III), a violation of La. R. S. 14: 81. 1( A)( 1) and (E)( 4) ( prior

to amendment by 2018 La. Acts, No. 682, § 1);              aggravated rape2 of a victim under the

age      of thirteen years ( T.P.) ( count      IV), a violation of La. R.S.         14: 42( A)(4);

molestation of a juvenile ( T.P.) ( count V), a violation of La. R.S. 14: 81. 2( A)( 1),

 13)( 2) and ( C);   and pornography involving juveniles ( count VI), a violation of La.

R.S. 14: 81. 1( A)( 1)( 2) and ( E)( 1). (   R. 62- 63).     The State severed Count III prior to

trial.

          Following a jury trial, the jury found the defendant guilty as charged on counts

I, It, IV, V, and VI by unanimous verdicts.3 On count I, the trial court sentenced the

defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or

suspension of sentence.         On count II, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a

concurrent term of twenty years at hard labor, five years without benefit of parole,

probation,     or suspension     of sentence.       On count III, the trial court sentenced the

defendant to a concurrent term of twenty years at hard labor without benefit of

probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.               On count IV, he was sentenced to a

  We reference the victims and their family members by their initials. See La. R.S. 46: 1844( W).

Z 2015 La. Acts, No. 184, § 1 and 2015 La, Acts, No. 256, § I renamed the offense of aggravated
rape as first-degree rape.

  When the counts were listed for the jury at the beginning of trial, count III was omitted, count
IV was listed as count IIT, count V was listed as count IV, and count VI was listed as count V, The
responsive verdict form provided to the jury listed the responsive verdicts for counts I and III (as
renumbered) together, counts 11 and IV ( as renumbered) together, and count V ( as renumbered)
separately.   The verdict form listed the counts in the same order as the responsive verdict form,
but numbered them from I to V, rather than I, III ( as renumbered), II, IV ( as renumbered) and
count V ( as renumbered). The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. Accordingly, the
renumbering of the counts did not affect substantial rights of the defendant. See La. C. Cr.P. art.
921.

                                                    2
concurrent term of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole,

probation, or suspension of sentence.     4n count V, he was sentenced to a concurrent

term of twenty years at hard labor, five years without benefit of parole, probation, or

suspension of sentence.
                             The defendant now appeals, contending reversible error

occurred when the testimony of a State expert invaded the province of the jury. For

the following reasons, we affirm the convictions and sentences on counts 1, 1I, IV

and V; we vacate the sentence on count III, and remand with instructions.

                                          FACTS

        M.N. lived with the defendant in Slidell for approximately twenty years. ( R.

670).   She had two children and four grandchildren, including granddaughters T.P.,

and T.Z. While M.N. was living with the defendant, he helped to take care of T.P. and

T.Z. and was left alone with them.

        T.P. testified that when she was eight years old, the defendant became sexually

inappropriate with her by putting his mouth on her vagina. Thereafter, the defendant

performed oral sex on her too many times to count. When T.P. was nine or ten years

old, at the defendant' s request, she performed oral sex on him, and he touched her

private area and breasts.     When T.P. was twelve years old, the defendant started

touching her when she was going to sleep and asked to see and touch her vagina. When

T.P. was thirteen years old, the defendant also began asking her to touch his penis with

her hands.

        T.P. and T.Z. both described one incident where the defendant victimized the

two of them at the same time by telling T.Z. to touch T.P.' s vagina.        T.Z. complied

with the demand after T.P. told her to " do it, just get it over with." T.Z. did not disclose

the abuse until she was fifteen years old because she did not think anyone would

believe her.

                                              3
       When T.P. was fourteen or fifteen years old, the defendant would ask her to send

him pictures of her vagina, breasts, and entire body.'         He would also ask her personal

questions about her relationships with boys and girls and then use what she told him to

blackmail her into complying with his demands. When T.P. was fifteen or sixteen

years old, the defendant bought her an LG phone. Thereafter, he called the phone and

talked to T.P. while he masturbated. T.P. identified a photograph of her breasts that

she took with the phone and sent to the defendant at his request when she was fifteen

years old.

       T.Z. testified when she was seven years old, the defendant became sexually

inappropriate with her by showing her his penis, by touching her vagina, and by

making her touch his penis with her hands.             When T.Z. was twelve years old, the

defendant touched her vagina with his mouth. When T.Z. was between thirteen and

fifteen years old, the defendant would contact her using FaceTime and tell her to show

him her breasts and vagina. The defendant took screen shots of this and threatened to

post them on Facebook if she did not comply with his demands.                T.Z. identified text

messages between herself and the defendant stating, "[ T.Z.], you leave me no choice.

I' m going to Facebook[.]"        She testified the conversation was about the defendant

threatening to post the screen shots. When T.Z. was fifteen years old, she disclosed

the defendant was abusing her, by writing a note stating, " I kept this secret for years.

Grandpa is a rapist." T.Z. testified when she referenced " Grandpa," she was referring

to the defendant.

                          IMPROPER EXPERT TESTIMONY

       In his sole assignment of error, the defendant contends the expert testimony of

Anne Troy,' in which she diagnosed T.Z. with chronic child sexual abuse, invaded the

province of the jury, resulting in reversible error.

  T.P. testified she used her own phone to send these messages.

5 This witness referenced herself as " Dr. Troy" and testified that she was a nurse practitioner and
had been a nurse for forty- four years.

                                                 0
         Louisiana Code of Evidence article 704 provides:

                Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise
         admissible is not to be excluded solely because it embraces an ultimate
         issue to be decided by the trier of fact. However, in a criminal case, an
         expert witness shall not express an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of
         the accused.

         As a general matter, if" scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will

help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue[,"            a

qualified expert may testify in the form of an opinion.           La. C. E. art. 702( A)( 1).

However, " expert testimony, while not limited to matters of science, art or skill, cannot

invade the field of common knowledge, experience and education of men." State v.

Young, 2009- 1177 ( La. 415/ 10), 35 So.3d 1042, 1046- 47, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1044,

131 S. Ct, 597, 178 L.Ed.2d 434 ( 2010); State v. Stucke, 419 So. 2d 939, 945 ( La.

1982).     Under La. C.E. art. 704, a trial judge may admit expert testimony which

 embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact[,]" but the expert witness

is not permitted to testify to the ultimate issue of a defendant' s guilt. State v. Irish,

2000- 2086 ( La. 1115102), 807 So. 2d 208, 212, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 846, 123 S. Ct.

185, 154 L.Ed.2d 73 ( 2002).

         In State v. Foret, 628 So. 2d 1116 ( La. 1993), the court recognized that scientific

testimony could be admissible for very " limited purposes," and a proper presentation

ofthe testimony would focus on explaining to a jury why superficially bizarre reactions

such as delayed reporting take place. Furthermore, the opinion testimony should

demonstrate or explain in general terms the behavioral characteristics of child abuse

victims in disclosing alleged incidents, without giving testimony that directly concerns

the particular victim' s credibility. Foret, 628 So.2d at 1129- 30.

         State v. Chauvin, 2002- 1188 ( La. 5120103), 846 So. 2d 697 involved an appeal

of a conviction for indecent behavior with juveniles. Chauvin, 846 So.2d at 698. At

trial, over the objection of the defense, the State presented expert testimony from a

licensed clinical social worker who testified she had seen one of the victims as a patient

                                               5
at a facility providing counseling for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence.

Chauvin, 846 So.2d at 699. The social worker diagnosed the victim as suffering from

Post -Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). fid. At trial, the State asked the social worker

whether the clinical findings, both subjective and objective, that she observed in regard

to the victim, were those consistent with a child who had been sexually abused.

Chauvin, 846 So.2d at 700. The social worker replied, " Yes, the symptoms were that

of post-traumatic stress."    Id.

        The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the social worker violated the

rules of Daubert' and Foret, concluding:

       Under these circumstances, we find that the State introduced the expert
       testimony regarding [ the victim' s] diagnosis of PTSD for the purpose of
        substantively proving that sexual abuse occurred. There is no indication
       that the State attempted to limit this evidence to explain delayed
        reporting,   which could be construed as apparently inconsistent with
       having been sexually abused. There is no showing that PTSD evidence
        is reliable and accurate as substantive proof of sexual abuse and therefore,
        it is inadmissible for this purpose. We hold that this evidence, like
        CSAAS- based evidence,       should be admissible only for the limited
       purpose of explaining, in general terms, certain reactions of a child to
       abuse that would be used to attack the victixn/witness' s credibility. Foret,
        628 So. 2d at 1131.    The trial court in its discretion can determine, on a
       case by case basis, if a particularized hearing is necessary ( Daubert
       hearing) to test the reliability of expert testimony on PTSD when it is
       being offered for the limited purposes discussed above.

Chauvin, 846 So.2d at 708- 09.

        On previous occasions, this Court has considered similar testimony from expert

witnesses, including the expert witness involved in this case. State v. Griffin, 2015-

1765 ( La.     App. lst Cir. 4127116), 2016 WL 2840309, * 1 ( unpublished), involved a

conviction for aggravated rape.      At trial over defense objection, Nurse Troy agreed

with the State that her observations of the victim' s demeanor, as well as the physical

findings, were consistent with sexual abuse. Griffin, 2016 WL 2840309 at * 4.           On

appeal, this Court distinguished the testimonies of Dr. Janzen in Foret and the social

b Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed. 2d
469 ( 1993).

                                              G
worker in Chauvin, noting Nurse Troy had not relied upon a collateral diagnosis, such

as CSAAS or PTSD, to reach a finding of sexual abuse. Griffin, 2016 WL 2840309

at * 6.
          We also noted Nurse Troy had not definitively stated that the victim had been

sexually abused, whereas in Foret, 628 So.2d at 1120, Dr. Janzen had testified that the

victim' s details were " consistent with the dynamics of sexual abuse," and his " only

conclusion" was that she " had been sexually abused." Griffin, 2016 WL 2840309 at

 6.   We found that while Nurse Troy had agreed with the State that the victim' s

demeanor, as well as the physical findings, were " consistent with a child who has been

abused,"     on cross- examination, she had admitted she could not make a definitive

finding of sexual abuse. Id. Accordingly, we concluded that Nurse Troy' s testimony

was within the limits of Daubert, Foret, and Chauvin. Id.

          State v. Grandison, 2018- 0046 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 5/ 18), 2018 WL 5785333,

 1(   unpublished),   writ denied, 2018- 1992 ( La. 6/ 3! 19), 272 So.3d 545, involved a

conviction for aggravated rape, and the defendant' s challenge to the admission of

testimony from expert witness Dr. Jackson that her diagnosis of child sexual abuse was

solely based on the child' s history provided by the victim. Grandison, 2018 WL

5785333 at * 6- 9. On appeal, we found the issue barred from review. See La. C. Cr.P.

art. 841; Grandison, 2018 WL 5785333 at * 7. Moreover, we noted, as in Griffin, Dr.

Jackson had not affirmatively stated that the victim had been sexually abused or that

she was being truthful.    Grandison, 2018 WL 5785333 at * 9. Indeed, when asked if

she knew whether the victim had " absolutely told [Dr. Jackson] the truth," Dr. Jackson

answered, "    No one can speak to the veracity of someone' s statement.     I' m not a lie

detector. No one would be able to say." Id. We found Dr. Jackson' s testimony " was

certainly not ` tantamount to an opinion that the defendant was guilty of the crime

chargedL,]"'    and thus, concluded it was within the limits of Daubert, Foret, and

Chauvin. Id.,       oting State v. Wheeler, 416 So. 2d 78, 81 ( La. 1982).

                                             7
         State v. Schwaner, 2018- 1012 ( La. App. I` Cir. 2/ 28/ 19), 2019 WL 990223,

 1(   unpublished),
                      involved convictions for sexual battery of M.L.         At trial, the

defendant objected to the following testimony from Nurse Troy:

         Q. What did you learn from [M.L.] during this incident history?

         A. She told me that Greg, her adopted father/uncle had sexually abused
         her by putting his penis in her mouth, that it was wet, clothes were off.
         He had just his shorts on when he was in the room. I always ask kids
         what is the saddest thing for you about this because sometimes kids look
         very flat when they are giving a history and she said the saddest thing was
         talking about it. She had to tell her aunt because she found out.

         Q. Okay. t want to turn to the assessment page, what is the purpose of
         the assessment page?

         A. In medicine, we get a subjective history from patients, we get physical
         findings then we compare those and we make differential diagnoses,
         ruled in or out and then make a final diagnosis. So, this would be the
         place where we would document that, the history provided to me, what
         the physical exam showed, what lab was pending and then my diagnosis.

         Q. What was your assessment In this case?

         A. You' re asking my medical diagnosis.

         Q. Yes, ma' am.

         A. That it was a sexual abuse, chronic.

Schwaner, 2019 WL 990223 at * 9.

         On appeal, this court found Nurse Troy' s testimony that she diagnosed the

victim   with " sexual   abuse,   chronic"   to be an expression of an opinion as to the

defendant' s guilt or innocence, which should not have been allowed into evidence.

Schwaner, 2019 WL 990223 at * 10.

         State v. Mullen, 2018- 0643 ( La. App. 1'    Cir. 12121/ 18), 269 So.3d 772, 775,

writ denied, 2020- 00408 ( La. 1016120), 302 So. 3d 529, involved convictions for

aggravated rape and molestation of a juvenile (A.S.). At trial, the defendant moved for

a mistrial in response to the following testimony from Nurse Troy:

         Prosecutor: Well, you examined [ A.S.], correct, on October 19, 2016?

         Troy: Yes, I did.

                                                M
       Prosecutor: And what was [ sic] your findings?

       Troy: And, again, she has a history that' s clear— what we' re looking for
       if you' re looking is she' s got a clear and detailed history that she provided
       to me.     It did not have any of those red flags that had me concerned for
       her,    either having a psychiatric illness or having been coached, so,
       therefore, that was consistent with her being normal in her physical
       findings.     So most child sexual abuse is diagnosed based on the history
       presented to us.    So I made the diagnosis of child sexual abuse and did all
       the lab work involved in that.

State v. Mullen, 269 So. 3d at 785.

       4n appeal, this court found Nurse Troy' s testimony that she " made the diagnosis

of child    sexual   abuse"   to be " an unequivocal statement regarding [ the victim' s]

credibility by conclusively diagnosing her as having been a victim of child sex abuse,

be it solely a medical diagnosis or otherwise." Mullen, 269 So.3d at 785- 86.

       In the instant case, Dr. Anne Troy was accepted as an expert in the field of child

abuse and child abuse pediatrics.     She stated her medical diagnosis and treatment was

driven by the history provided by the children she examined. She noted that history

was often delayed because sexually abused children are more likely than not abused

by someone they know, which results in them delaying reporting the abuse.

       Dr. Troy obtained a history from and examined T.Z. The State asked Dr. Troy

what was her diagnosis after the examination. Dr. Troy replied, "[ c] hild sexual abuse,

chronic."     The defense objected, and the trial court overruled the objection.

       The State continued questioning Dr. Troy as follows:

        State]: Is [ T.Z.' s] disclosure consistent with child sexual abuse?

       Dr. Troy]: [      T.Z.] provided me a clear and a detailed, spontaneous
       narrative that was consistent with child sexual abuse.

       Thereafter, Dr. Troy identified a recording of the medical history provided by

T.Z., which was played for the jury. The State asked Dr. Troy, " you had stated earlier

that, after your assessment of [T.Z.], you found that she provided a clear and detailed

history of ongoing sexual abuse, is that fair?" Dr. Troy, replied, "[ t] hat is correct."

       The defense engaged in the following colloquy with Dr. Troy:

                                               9
         Defense]:   So how many times have you testified, have said that the
        prosecutor says, you know this child has got up before you and said that
        they were abused and your opinion is, well, I think that child' s lying, they
        weren' t abused?

         Dr. Troy]:     Well, I would never say that a child is lying because, again,
        I' m not a human lie detector. So what I' m looking for is whether or not
        I have a history provided to me that' s clear and detailed in the sense of a
        narrative.  And having received that, I will put, as will anyone who' s
        trained in child maltreatment, that this is, from a medical point of view,
        is consistent with child sexual abuse. I don' t investigate.

        Thereafter, the defendant filed a written motion for a mistrial, arguing Dr. Troy' s

testimony that her medical diagnosis was chronic child sexual abuse was reversible

error under Foret, Chauvin, Schwaner, and Mullen.                  At the hearing on the motion,

the State pointed out Dr. Troy had not stated that T.Z. was telling the truth or that the

defendant was guilty of the charges and had explained her challenged statement

indicated T.Z. provided a clear and detailed history of sexual abuse.

        The trial court noted, after reviewing the cited authorities and observing Dr.

Troy and the context in which the challenged statement was given, found that the

statement was not a prejudicial remark requiring a mistrial under La. C. CrR art. 770,

but at most a remark requiring an admonition under La. C.CrR art. 771. E

        The trial court admonished the jury:

               Members of the jury, during the testimony of Dr. Anne Troy, a
        question was posed, and I paraphrase, what was your diagnosis involving
         T.Z.]?   The answer in a short form, and I paraphrase, is child sexual
        abuse comma chronic. The jury will disregard that testimony.

  Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 770 provides that a defendant may move for a
mistrial when the judge, district attorney, or a court official makes a remark or comment within
the hearing of the jury, during the trial or in argument, which directly or indirectly refers to: ( 1)
race, religion, color or national origin, if the remark or comment is not material and relevant and
might create prejudice against the defendant in the mind of the jury; (2) another crime committed
or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible; ( 3) the
defendant' s failure to testify in his own defense; or ( 4) the judge' s refusal to direct a verdict.
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 771 allows the State or the defendant to request that
 the court promptly admonish the jury to disregard irrelevant or prejudicial remarks made by the
judge, district attorney, or a court official when the remarks are not within the scope of La. C. Cr.P.
 an. 770, or made by a person other than the judge, district attorney, or court official, regardless of
whether or not the remark is within the scope of La. C. Cr. P. art. 770.       The court may grant a
mistrial on the defendant' s motion if it is satisfied that an admonition is insufficient to assure the
defendant a fair trial. La. C. Cr.P. art. 771. A mistrial under La. C. Cr.P. art. 771 is at the trial
court' s discretion and should be granted only where the prejudicial remarks make it impossible for
the defendant to obtain a fair trial. State v. Walston, 2022- 0317 ( La. App. 1"   Cir. 11/ 4/ 22), 2022
WL 16707997, * 7.

                                                  10
          The trial court also charged the jury as follows:

                 An expert witness may state an opinion concerning matters that
          relate to their field of expertise, and may also state their reasons for the
          opinion. You are not bound to accept such expert testimony and you may
          give it great weight or slight [ weight] or you may reject such testimony
          entirely, if, in your judgment, the reasons for it are not sound. ( R. 945-
          46).

          Under Schwaner and Mullen, Nurse Troy' s diagnosis of"[ c] hild sexual abuse,

chronic"
            fell within the scope of Article 771, and thus, the granting of a mistrial was

in the broad discretion of the trial court. See State v. Caminita, 2016- 0121 ( La. App,

1 "" Cir. 9/ 16/ 16), 203 So.3d 1100, 1106, writ denied, 2016- 2045 (La. 9/6/ 17), 244 So.3d

988. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 775 provides in part that "[ u] pon

motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered, and in a jury case the jury dismissed,

when prejudicial conduct in or outside the courtroom makes it impossible for the

defendant to obtain a fair trial, or when authorized by [ La. C.Cr.P. art.] 770 or 771."

As a general matter, mistrial is a drastic remedy that should only be declared upon a

clear showing of prejudice by the defendant; a mere possibility of prejudice is not

sufficient.      In addition, a district court judge has broad discretion in determining

whether conduct is so prejudicial as to deprive an accused of a fair trial. A reviewing

court should not reverse a defendant' s conviction and sentence unless the error has

affected the substantial rights of the accused. See La. C. Cr.P. art. 921; Id.

          In both Schwaner and Mullen, this Court found the error to be subject to

harmless error analysis. See Schwaner, 2019 WL 990223 at * 11; Mullen, 269 So. 3d

at 786.    The proper analysis for determining harmless error " is not whether, in a trial

that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but

whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the

error."    Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275, 279, 113 S. Ct. 2078, 2081, 124 L.Ed.2d

182 ( 1993); Schwaner, 2019 WL 990223 at * 11; Mullen, 269 So.3d at 786.

                                               Z1
        Even in a capital case, the Louisiana Supreme Court has found the testimony of

expert witnesses that the defendant was the perpetrator harmless where the testimony

was cumulative and corroborative of other admissible evidence, and the jury was

instructed that they alone were to determine the ultimate issues. See State v. Code,

627 So.2d 1373, 1384- 85 ( La. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100, 114 S. Ct. 1870, 128

L.Ed.2d 490 ( 1994) (" Considering the admissible evidence concerning the palm prints,

no rational juror could find those facts without also finding the ultimate fact of the

defendant' s guilt.   It is beyond doubt the guilty verdict in this case was unattributable

to the erroneous testimony."). See also, State v. Batiste, 99- 1481 ( La. App. 151 Cir.

3/ 31/ 00), 764 So.2d 1038, 1040, writ denied, 20001648 (La. 6/ 22/ 01), 794 So. 2d 778

   A] ny error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The values contained in this

exhibit were merely cumulative and corroborative of the previously admitted

testimony[.]"); State v. Hawkins, 633 So. 2d 301, 307 (La. App. I" Cir. 1993), ("[ H] ad

there been error in allowing the testimony, which we need not decide, the error would

have been harmless.      An observation by Ms. Logan that the victim had the demeanor

of a child who had been sexually victimized is merely cumulative of other evidence in

the record that the victim was indeed molested by the defendant."); State v. Moser,

588 So.2d 1243, 1249 (La. App. V Cir. 1991), writ denied, 594 So.2d 1314 ( La. 1992)

   T] he prosecutor' s remark was cumulative and,           as   such,   amounts to harmless

error.").

       In the instant case, Dr. Troy' s diagnosis of "[c] hild sexual abuse, chronic" was

cumulative    and     corroborative   of   other    admissible   evidence,   specifically:   the

photograph of T.P.' s breasts and her testimony that, when she was fifteen years old,

she used the phone the defendant bought her to photograph her breasts and to send the

photograph to the defendant at his request; the evidence of the text messages between

the defendant and T.Z. and her testimony that the defendant victimized her using

FaceTime; and the testimony of both T.P. and T.Z. that the defendant ordered T.Z. to

                                               12
touch T.P.' s vagina.     No rational juror could find these facts without also finding the

ultimate fact of the defendant' s guilt. See Code, 627 So. 2d at 1385.   Additionally, the

jury was admonished to disregard the challenged testimony of Dr. Troy and was

charged that it need not accept expert testimony and was free to entirely reject such

testimony. Accordingly, the challenged testimony of Dr. Troy was harmless in this

case, and the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in finding the testimony

insufficiently prejudicial to deprive the defendant of a fair trial and that an admonition

was sufficient to cure the prejudice from the testimony.

       For these reasons, this assignment of error is without merit.

                                 SENTENCING ERROR

       Under La. C. Cr.P. art. 920( 2), we are limited in our review to errors discoverable

by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the

evidence. After a careful review of the record, we have found sentencing errors in this

matter.      See State v. Price, 2005- 2514 ( La. App. 1 sc Cir. 12128106), 952 So.2d 112,

123 ( en Banc), writ denied, 2007- 0130 ( La. 2/ 22/ 08), 976 So.2d 1277.

       On count I7I, the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years at hard labor

without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Thereafter, the clerk

advised the trial court that count III was severed. The trial court stated the counts were

renumbered, and count IV was renumbered as count III. The trial court also stated that

if the minute clerk had any issues with the numbering of the counts correlating to the

sentences, the court would review the issues in the uniform commitment order.' The

trial court did not vacate the sentence imposed for count III. Further, the sentence

imposed for count IV—life without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of

sentence ( the mandatory sentence for count IV) was illegal for count III. See La. R.S.

14: 42( D)( 1) and La. R.S. 14: 81. 1( E)( 4) ( prior to amendment by 2018 La. Acts, No.

682, § 1).    Accordingly, the record indicates the trial court imposed an invalid sentence

s The record does not contain a uniform commitment order.

                                              13
for count 111. 9 A valid sentence must rest upon a valid and sufficient: ( 1) statute; ( 2)

indictment; and ( 3)    verdict, judgment, or plea of guilty.      La. C.Cr.P. art. 872.     The

sentence imposed on count III does not rest upon a valid and sufficient verdict,

judgment, or plea of guilty. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on count III hereby is
vacated.

       The sentencing transcript further reflects the trial court failed to impose a

sentence on count VI.10 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. I'       Cir. 617113), 2013 WL 2490361, * I ( unpublished);

State v. Soco, 94- 1099 ( La. App. 1'    Cir. 6123/ 95), 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 a valid sentence on count VI, the defendant' s

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

Therefore, we do not consider the defendant' s assignment of error in regard to count

VI, as it is not properly before us. Accordingly, the matter is remanded for sentencing

on count VI.     After sentencing on count VI, the defendant may perfect a new appeal

on that count.

                                          DECREE

       CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES ON COUNTS                                   I, II, IV &       V
AFFIRMED; SENTENCE ON COUNT III VACATED; REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.

s The sentencing minutes do not reflect a sentence for count III. When there is a discrepancy
between the minutes and the transcript, the transcript must prevail.   State v. Lynch, 441 So. 2d
732, 734 ( La. 1983).

10 The sentencing minutes reflect a sentence for count V1. However, the transcript must prevail.
Lynch, 441 So. 2d at 734.

                                               14
                                   STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                    COURT OF APPEAL

                                          FIRST CIRCUIT

                                     DOCKET NUMBER

                                           2023 KA 0221

                                  STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                             VERSUS

                                          JAMES BISHOP

HOLDRIDGE, J., concurring.

       I respectfully concur with the report. Under the facts of this case, I agree with

the majority that the defendant was proven guilty of the crimes -charged beyond a

reasonable doubt.          However, I am troubled about the error of the trial court in

allowing the testimony of Dr. Anne Troy, wherein she made the diagnosis of "child

sexual abuse, chronic."        A written motion for a mistrial was filed by the defendant,

but the trial court deemed the statement not to be so prejudicial of a remark as to

require a mistrial under La. C. Cr.P. art. 771.      Clearly, the remark made by Dr. Anne

Troy could not be any more prejudicial. The error of the trial court is compounded

by the jurisprudence that such a profound error is subject to the harmless error

analysis.    See State v. Schwaner, 2018- 1012 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 28119), 2019 VVL

990223,     at *   11 (   unpublished);    State v. Mullen, 2018- 0643 ( La.   App.   1   Cir.

12/ 21/ 18), 269 So. 3d 772, 786, writ denied 2020- 00408 ( La. 1016/ 20), 302 So. 3d

529.