STATE OF LOUISIANA Vs. RANDALL EPPERLEY AND DAVID EPPERLEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2012-KA-0766 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL RANDALL EPPERLEY AND DAVID EPPERLEY * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 500-897, SECTION “I” Honorable Karen K. Herman, Judge ****** James F. McKay, III Chief Judge ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Rosemary Ledet) Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., District Attorney Kyle Daly, Assistant District Attorney 619 South White Street New Orleans, LA 70119 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Stavros Panagoulopoulos PELICAN LAW GROUP, P.L.C. 1515 S. Salcedo St., Suite 102 New Orleans, LA 70125 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, RANDALL EPPERLEY Sherry Watters LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT P. O. Box 58769 New Orleans, LA 70158-8769 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, DAVID EPPERLEY JUNE 19, 2013 APPEAL DISMISSED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING A review of the record reveals a patent error which is fatal to this appeal. While the minute entry states that the trial court imposed sentences of five years incarceration under the supervision of the Louisiana Department of Corrections (“D.O.C.”) upon each defendant in this case, as well as in each of the companion cases, the transcript of sentencing reveals that the court failed to impose sentence in this case. The appellants pled guilty on the same day in several cases involving charges of theft and misappropriation, and the court reset sentencing in all of the cases until after it had conducted the restitution hearing. In simultaneously rendering sentences in all of the cases, the trial court inadvertently failed to impose sentence in the instant matter, although it ordered the sentences in other cases to be served either concurrently or consecutively with the sentences in this case. 1 In the event of a discrepancy between the minutes of a hearing and the transcript, the transcript prevails. See State v. Watson, 2000–1580, p. 3 n. 4 (La. 5/14/02), 817 So.2d 81, 83; State v. Maten, 2004-1718, p.18, (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 899 So.2d 711, 725. Therefore, this Court must conclude that although the trial court 1 The trial court failed to impose sentences in CDC Case Nos. 500-897, 501-105 and 503-758; the applicable companion cases are as follows: Nos. 500-897, 503-758, 508-897, 501-105, 500-898, 505-952, 508-935 and 508788. 1 imposed the amount of restitution that the appellants must pay, it did not actually impose sentences in this case. La. C.Cr.P. art. 912C(1) provides that a defendant may appeal from a “judgment which imposes sentence.” See State v. Baxter, 343 So.2d 733 (La. 1977) (per curiam). Thus, the appeal was taken prematurely. As per Baxter, we dismiss this appeal and remand the case for the imposition of sentences. APPEAL DISMISSED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING 2
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.
