State Of Louisiana VS Stephen Bell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIi NAT'ED F' R PUBLICATION TA'TE OF : OC.' 15` ANA C,UL+ RT OF APYEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2013 KA 0950 STATE, OF LOU'ISIANA VERSliS J T. l':[; nf. r N 13EI, i_ F.r nc; rEN: FEB i 2 ? 014 ON APPEAL FROM 7"HE TWENI'Y-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NI.JMBER 2803'2, DN1Si0' I " A", PAR SH OF ASCENSION STA'fF, OF LOUISIANA f IONORABLE RAL.PH: : 2JREAU, JLIDGE Ricl. y L. Babin Counsei for Appeflee District l.tto ney Sta e af(. o}.fisiana Donaldsonvi] le, Loz isiana Donald U. Candell Assistant I3istrict Attorney Gonzales, Louisiana Fr lk Sloan ui sal foi Defendant-Appellate nt Louisiana Appella_ Prc ject Se phen BeEI Mandeville, Louisiana BEFORC: I;.L11-i:+', : i r1NB0"I' H-'LNI, A Ill THERIOT, JJ. Ilisposition. C NV1C"I` IONS AND Sr" ' ; iti' cS AFF IR' v1Ei): REMnNDED WI"I' H INSTRUCTIONS. IiiJHN, J., Defendant, Stephen 3 11, z i; y chaFge yas and jury indictment with four counts of aggravated rape, violatio*.s of La. I{.. 3. guilty. (R. p. 2). 14: 4` . ( R. p. 16). L He pled not Subsequeutly, Ti e state an ended defendant' s indictment to charge him with four counts of aggravated in est, violations of La. R.S. 14: 78. 1, and defez dant withdrew his former ple s of not guilty and entered pleas of guilt, y pursuant to a written agreement tlle with state. ( R. p. 14- 15, 47- 51). ' Tlze trial court accepted defendant' s pleas and, urAder the ter ns of the plea agreement, sentenced him to four eoncurrent terms of f'orty years imprisonment at hard labor, with thirty years of each ter rr to bc a rved with ut benelit of parole, probation; or suspension of (, K. sentence. r. 5f, 71). On appeal, defendarat raises a sole assignment of error requestit2g tl at t tis Court refn;ind this matter for correction of the minute entry t f h s sentenciri; w lick lisrs incarrect sentencing informatioll. For the f'olla ving reasc iis; wc a I`firrrt defendanr' s con ictions and sentences and ren7ar.d for amexrdment of the ser erae c g rzi nute entry 7nd commitment order. FACTS Secause e efendcult p( ed gtr lty, tI7e ac? oC is offerises we e tiat devel ped af tria}. The written plea agre rri nt zilty plea transeript reflect that anci } iis defendant engaged in ag; r.lc ate. incest witi i- is tnin r stepdaughter on at least i f' ur ccasiarrs [7et« een August l , 'u i 0 and ; vnveirl er 17; 2010. (It. p. 50, 70) S4IG;' V1ENT O` [ v17_ 120T2 In his sole assigrin en of`es rc a ¢. ciefendar;t c rreully asserts that the niir.utes inisstate Che sexltences imposed > v agrEE: tnezlt and sentencir' concurrent sentenc tc1 tit: seiv d 51;. ,' Ij. -Fl satit mit we s t r r; tr= a1 ct7urt. Defendant' s written plea tran, cript iriaicate t`i.it the irial court impcised four r f forty Sr: nef[ thz yca. t ihe niinzit t F,<<; s [- s `ak Mard labo ¢, ic, probatior., nt r d fend ¢ t s vith thirty yeais of eacli serrtencz r sasi7 nsi acntericing n of setitence. ( and } ii R. p. comtnitment order incorreetly foriy years without reflect tha* th;, hard labor, , Nith at benefit ciz, ; r; r1, ecl fu xr concurrent sentences of oun _ , ,: tri ti%- o ol each sentence to be served yea: of parole, prabatios;, c, r suspensf r: f sentence. ( R. p. 15, 52). lt is well settled th t where there is a discrepancy between a minute entry and the txanscript, the transcript 1983). prevails. See Stcafe v. Lynch, 44l So.2d 732, 734 ( La. Defendant requests thai the minute entr.y of his sentencizlg be amended to correctly state the sentences imposed, and Che state, concurs in the request. ( State brief, p. 6). Accordingi; we hereby reniancl tfiis matter to the tr'ial couri: for correction of the sentencing minute entry an<2 the commitmer t order to refleet that the instant sentences are concurrent terms of f'orty years at hard labor, with thirty years of cach sentence to he served without benefit ofparole; probation, ar suspension of sentence. In all other respec.; CONVICTIONS AND elefendant' s con icCions anel sentences are affinned: SENTENCFS INSTRUCTIONS. 3 AFi^' IRMEn; RF.MANnED WiTH

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.