State v. Epperley
State v. Epperley
Opinion of the Court
|! A review of the record reveals a patent error which is fatal to this appeal. While the minute entry for January 27, 2012 states that the trial court imposed a sentence of five years incarceration in the Louisiana Department of Corrections (“D.O.C.”) upon the defendant, the tran
|2In 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 n. 4; State v. Maten, 2004-1718 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 899 So.2d 711, 725. Therefore, this Court must conclude that although the trial court imposed the amount of restitution that the appellant must pay, it did not actually impose sentence 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). 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.
. The trial court failed to impose sentences in CDC Cases 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, 508-935 and 508-788.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.