Background
Kent Joseph Lewis sought supervisory review of a ruling in his prosecution for unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling. The district court had accepted a plea agreement contemplating a six-year suspended sentence and three years of probation.
At sentencing, however, the district court expressly imposed six months and three years of probation, as reflected in both the sentencing transcript and court minutes. The State did not object to that sentence or file a motion to reconsider it. At subsequent revocation proceedings, the district court ordered Lewis to serve six years with the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal granted the writ, concluding that the district court committed legal error by imposing the six-year term at the revocation proceedings. Because the sentence actually pronounced and documented was six months, Lewis was legally subject only to that sentence.
The court reasoned that the State acquiesced in the six-month sentence by neither objecting nor moving to reconsider the sentence under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 881.1(A)(1). It vacated the six-year sentence, reinstated the six-month sentence, and remanded with instructions to amend the minute entry and commitment order immediately. Judge Theriot dissented and would have denied the writ application.
Key Takeaways
- The sentence expressly imposed in the sentencing transcript and court minutes was six months, notwithstanding the plea agreement’s contemplated six-year suspended sentence.
- The State did not preserve a challenge to the six-month sentence by objecting or filing a motion to reconsider.
- The district court could not impose a six-year term at revocation when Lewis was legally subject only to the six-month sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the sentence actually pronounced and entered controls a defendant’s exposure at later revocation proceedings. A plea agreement’s sentencing terms do not permit a court to enlarge the imposed sentence after the State has allowed a different sentence to stand without objection or a motion to reconsider.