State Of Louisiana VS Byron Rendell Jones

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COLTRT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2013 KA 0705 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS BYRON RENDELL JONES JudgmentRendered: D C 2 7 ZQt3 On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court, II In and for the Parish of St. Tammany, State of Louisiana ru Trial Court No. 487129/ 30 I C Honorable Allison H. Penzato, Judge Presiding Walter P. Reed Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee, District State of Louisiana Attorney Covington, LA Kathryn W. Landry Special Appeals Counsel Baton Rouge, LA Frank Sloan Attorney for Defendant- Appellant, Mandeville, LA Byron Rendell Jones BEFORE: KLJHN, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND THERIOT, JJ. HIGGINBOTHAM, J. The defendant, Byron R. Jones, was charged by bill of information # 487129 with one count of possession of a schedule IV controlled dangerous substance carisoprodol) ( count I), a violation of La. R.S. 40: 969( C); one count of possession of a schedule II controlled dan erous and two counts of distribution of a schedule II controlled La. R. S. 40: 967( C); dangerous substance 40: 967( A)( 1). ubstance ( oxycodone) ( count II), a violation of ( cocaine) III ( counts and IV), violations of La. R.S. He was charged by bill of information # 487130 with one count of possession of a schedule I controlled dangerous substance ( marijuana), a violation of La. R. S. 40: 966( C). withdrew his initial He pleas, initially and pled pled not guilty guilty as on charged all on counts. all Thereafter, he counts. The court recognized that the defendant' s willingness to plead guilty resulted from prior discussions between defense counsel, the district attomey, and the court. The court stated, "[ t] he substance of that plea agreement will be disclosed when I impose your sentence, and if it' s not in accordance with [your] understanding, you' ll be allowed to withdraw your plea of guilry at that time." Thereafter, the State filed a habitual offender bill of information in regard to bill #487129, counts III and IV, against the defendant.' The defendant agreed with the allegations of the habitual offender bill. On counts III and IV, he was sentenced to fifteen years at hard labor, with the first two years of the sentence to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence? On bill #487129, counts I and II, he was sentenced to five years at hard labor. On bill of information #487130, he was sentenced to six months in parish jaiL The court ordered that all of the sentences would run concurrently with each other. Additionally, defense counsel set forth, " Your Honor, I' d remind the The predicate was set forth as the defendanYs conviction, under Twenty- Second Judicial District Court Docket 299501, for attempted forcible rape. The sentencing minutes indicate four separate sentences were imposed on the counts under bill of information 487129. The sentencing transcripY, however, does not reflect ttie imposition of separate sentences on the counts. When there is a discrepancy between the minutes and the transcript, the transcript must prevail. State v. Lynch, 441 So2d 732, 7S4( La. 1983). 2 Court that pursuant to pretrial discussions with both the District Attomey and the Court that the defense has 60 days to bring forward any new information that it feels would be relevant plea agreement." to this matter." The trial court agreed " that was part of the initial The defendant now appeals, challenging the voluntariness of his guilty pleas. For the following reasons, we vacate the sentences and remand far resentencing. FACTS Due to the defendant' s guilty plea, there was no trial, and thus, no trial testimony concerning the offenses. The State and the defense stipulated that a factual basis existed to support the guilty pleas. Bill of information # 487129 charged that counts I and II were committed on January 14, 2010, that count III was committed on December 29, 2009, and count IV committed was on January 8, 2010. Bill of information #487130 charged that the offense thereunder was committed on January 14, 2010. REVIEW FOR ERROR Initially, we note that our review for error is pursuant to La. Code Crim. P. art. 920, which provides that the only matters to be considered on appeal are errors designated in the assignments of error and " error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence." La. Code Crim. P. art. 920( 2). The sentences imposed on the counts under bill of information #487129 were illegaL The defendant's four guilty pleas to four counts required the imposition of four separate However, rather than imposing a separate sentence on sentences. each count, the trial court imposed one sentence on counts I and II, and one sentence on counts III and IV. A defendant can appeal from a final judgment of has been imposed. La. Code Crim. P. art. conviction only 912( C)( 1). Error under La. Code Crim. P. art. 920( 2) occurs when a trial court, in where a sentence 3 sentencing on multiple counts, does not impose a separate sentence for each count. In the absence of valid sentences, the defendant' s appeal is not properly before this court. See State v. Soco, 94- 1099 ( La. App. lst Cir. 6/ 23/ 95), 6S7 So_2d 603. Accordingly, the sentences impos d by the trial court on bill of information 487129 are vacated, and we remand Yhis matter to the trial court for resentencing consistent with the views expressed herein.'' AfYer resentencing, the defendant may perfect a new appeal. SENTENCES ON BILL OF INFORMATION # 487129 VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. The trial court conectly imposed sentence on the count under bill of information #487130. However, this guilry plea and conviction are not appea7able. Review of the misdemeanor conviction and se tence must be by application for writ of review. See La. R. S. 40: 966( E)( t), La. Code Crim. P. 4 art. 779,& La. Code Crim. P. ark 912. 1( C)( 1).

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.