State ex rel. Hebert v. Henderson

Decision Date18 February 1974
Docket NumberNo. 53824,53824
Citation290 So.2d 832
PartiesSTATE of Louisiana ex rel. Robert Paul HEBERT, Relator, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent.
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Guy A. Modica, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-relator.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara B. Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Bernard N. Marcantel, Dist. Atty., Charles R. Cassidy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for defendant-respondent.

TATE, Justice.

We granted certiorari, 282 So.2d 522 (1973), on the contention and showing made, on the basis of the minutes attached, that possibly a re-sentencing of the relator on burglary charges constituted double jeopardy. However, on the basis of the verbatim transcript of what actually took place at the time of the sentencing and of 're-sentencing', we find no such issue present.

Based on what the minutes seem to reflect, the contention is made in this context:

In 1970, the relator-defendant was charged with a burglary and a theft arising out of his conduct in committing an unauthorized entry into the Oustalet Ford premises and stealing over two thousand dollars therefrom. The burglary charge bore Criminal Docket No. 890--70, and the theft charge Criminal Docket No. 892--70. He pleaded guilty to both these charges. On October 8, 1970, he was sentenced, According to the minutes, to serve nine years in the penitentiary 'in No. CR. 892 70' (i.e., the number of the theft charge) and then, to ten years in the penitentiary 'in No. CR. 893 70' (i.e., the burglary charge).

The maximum sentence for the grade of theft charged is ten years, La.R.S. 14:67, and the maximum for the simple burglary charged is nine years, La.R.S. 14:62. Thus, On the face of the minutes, the defendant's sentence of ten years on the burglary charge was illegal, as exceeding the maximum of nine years provided by the penal statute. 1 Also, on the face of the minutes, the defendant was first sentenced on the theft charge and received a valid sentence as to it, so (according to the defendant's argument) jeopardy immediately attached 2 and prevented the subsequent imposition of another sentence on the burglary charge arising out of the identical conduct.

In 1972, based upon these minutes, the relator filed post-conviction proceedings in the district court of the parish where sentenced. He alleged the illegality of the burglary sentence and further alleged double jeopardy, in that he could not be convicted of both theft and burglary arising out of the same act and conduct, provable by the same evidence, and all part of a continuous offense.

The minutes of December 14, 1972 of the hearing on the post-conviction petition state that: 'At this time the District Attorney moved to correct the sentence (as will be seen, the minute clerk omitted a reference here) and then moved to set aside the sentence in No. CR. 892 70 (i.e., the theft) and dismiss the charge. Counsel for the defendant moved to have the defendant's plea withdrawn. The State opposed the Motion. The matter was argued. For oral reasons assigned the Court denied the Motion. The Court at this time accepts the Nolle Prosse in No. CR. 892 70 (the theft), and the same is set aside. In No. CR. 893 70 (the burglary) the Court sentences the said Robert Paul Hebert to the Department of Corrections for a period of nine years.'

Based on these minutes, as well as on those of 1970, the defendant then applied to this court for certiorari. The primary thrust of his complaint was, since he had first received a valid sentence on the theft charge, the subsequent sentence on the burglary charge should be annulled as constituting double jeopardy. He also suggests he should have been permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty to the burglary charge.

We expressly pretermit consideration of whether there might be substance in the relator's contention if the minutes reflected what actually occurred. The verbatim transcript of the colloguy at the time of sentencing and of resentencing shows the minutes to be misleading and that they do not represent the actual trial court rulings.

In the first place, at the time of the original sentencing of October 8, 1970, the trial court's actual sentence was as follows: '* * * on CR--892--70, the charge of simple burglary, the Court will sentence you to serve nine years at hard labor. And on CR--893--70, the charge of theft, the Court will sentence you to serve ten years at hard labor.' Tr. 15. In other words, although the trial judge inadvertently used the wrong docket numbers, he sentenced the defendant, first, on the burglary charge to the maximum nine years and, next, on the theft charge to the maximum ten years. 3

The post-conviction hearing was held on December 14, 1972. The verbatim transcript reflects that the error in the original 1970 minutes was noted by the court. The district attorney then moved 'to correct the sentence given at the time'. Tr. 31. Pointing out that 'the first arraignment was on the simple burglary charge,' Tr. 31, the district attorney moved that the sentence on this charge, No. CR. 893--70, be corrected to reflect the actual statutory maximum of nine years. Tr. 32. The court granted this motion and corrected the sentence to nine years, in accord with 'the intent of the original sentence that was imposed on the man.' 4 Tr. 34.

Accepting the minute entry as correct for the moment, the ten-year sentence on the burglary charge was illegal as in excess of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State ex rel. Clark v. Marullo
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1977
    ... ... See also State ex rel. Hebert v. Henderson, 290 So.2d 832 (La.1974); State v. Ballard, 282 So.2d 448 (La.1973); State v. Willis, 279 So.2d 192 (La.1973) ...         The ... ...
  • State v. Outlaw
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • February 26, 1986
    ... ... State Ex. Rel. Hebert v. Henderson, 290 So.2d 832 (La.1974). When a defendant alone appeals and the record ... ...
  • 97-2651 La.App. 4 Cir. 5/20/98, State in Interest of H.L.F.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • May 20, 1998
    ... ... La.App. C.Cr.P. art. 882; State ex rel. Hebert v. Henderson, 290 So.2d 832 (La.1974). Where the defect in sentencing does not involve the ... ...
  • State v. DURAPAU, 01-KA-511.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • October 30, 2001
    ... ... State ex rel Hebert v. Henderson, 290 So.2d 832, 835 (La.1974); State v. Scott, 511 So.2d 828, 829 (La.App. 5 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT