State Of Louisiana VS Johnny Terrell Stewart
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PLBLICATION E d STA OF Lf L1ISIANA T COUR OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT ER 12 NLTN 2 KA 1411 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JOHNNY TERRELL STEWART JR Judgment Rendered March 22 2013 n w k k k k k Appealed from the Second Thirty Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Terrebonne State of Louisiana Docket Number 573 334 Honorable Randall L Bethancourt Judge Presiding Joseph District Waitz Counsel f Plaintiff r Appellee State of Louisiana Attorney Ellen Daigle Doskey istant As District Attomey Houma LA Bertha M Hillman Louisiana Appellate Project Thibodaux LA BEFORE Counsel for DefendanUAppellant Johnny Terrell Stewart Jr GUIDRY CRAIN AND THERIOT JJ GUIDRY J Defendant Johnny Terrell Stewart 3r and two codefendants were charged by bill of information each with two countc of attempted first degree murder violations of La R 14 and 143Q After a jurv trial defendant was found S 27 guilty of the responsive offense of aggravated battery a violation of La R S 34 14 on both counts The triai court subsequently denied defendant smotions for postverdict judgment of acquittal and new trial and sentenced defendant to five years at hard labor with the recommendation that he be placed in rehabilitative programs through the Department of Corrections Defendant moved for reconsideration of sentence but the trial court denied the motion Defendant now appeals urging a single assignment of error challenging the sentence imposed REVIEW FOR ERROR This Court reviews the record far error under La C Cr P art 920 2 Under Article 920 2we are limited in our review to errors discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the evidence See State v 2514 Price OS 18 La App lst Cir 12 952 So 2d 112 06 28 123 en bane writ denied 07 La 2f2 976 So 2d 1277 0130 I08 As previously noted defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery Instead of imposing a separate sentence for each count the trial court imposed one sentence of five years at hard labor At the sentencing hearing the trial court stated I is the sentence of this Court that you serve ten 10 years t with the Department of Corrections at hard labor This sentence shall be suspended upon the following conditions That you serve five years with the Department of Corrections at hard labor credit for time served The Court will recommend that you be placed in the DCI Youthful Offender Program andlor the Department of Corrections Work Release Program After a brief recess the 1 The two codefendants aze Joshua Raheem Moseiy and Davole De Martin but they were Jon not tried with defendant and they aze not parties to this appeal 2 trial court amended defendant sentence to fJive years hard labor credit for time s served And those recommendations lth the trial judge was clearly aware ugh considering his earlier statements during the sentencing hearing that defendant had been convicted of two counts of aggravated battery the record reflects that he failed to impose two separate sentenc or def offenses s s dant r s Defendant convictions of two counts of aggravated battery require the imposition of two separate sentences See State v Soco 94 La App 1st 1099 Cir 6657 So 2d 603 It is well settled that a defendant can appeal from a 95 23 final judgment of conviction only where a sentence has been imposed See La C Cr P art 912 see also State v Chapman 471 So 2d 716 La 1985 per 1 C curiam The failure of the trial court to impose a s sentence for each of the parate two counts is a sentencing error See Soco 657 So 2d at 603 see also State v Russland Enterprises Inc 542 So 2d 154 155 La App lst Cir 1989 In the absence of valid sentences the defendant sappeal is not properly before this court Soco 657 So 2d at 603 Accardingly the single sentence imposed by the trial court is vacated and we remand this matter to the trial court for resentencing in conformity with the law After resentencing the defendant may perfect a new appeal SENTENCE VACATED REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING 3
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.
