Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

638 So. 2d 475

Docket No. 94-K-1093.

State v. Tillman

STATE of Louisiana v. Bernard TILLMAN.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided June 8, 1994.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1994-06-08

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A trial court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. Only those claims relating to the legality of the sentence itself under the applicable sentencing statutes may be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Even if the sentence is legal, the court “may amend or change the sentence, within the legal limits of its discretion, prior to the | ^beginning of execution of the sentence,” After commencement of execution of the sentence, “in felony cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment without hard labor and in misdemeanor cases, the sentencing judge may reduce the sentence or may amend the sentence to place the defendant on supervised probation.” After appeal attempts are exhausted, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to take any action in a criminal proceeding other than the actions specified in La.Code Crim.P. art. 916 (none of which authorize a change in a legal sentence), or “as otherwise provided by law” (such as to handle an application for a writ of habe-as corpus or an application for postcon-viction relief). Under article 916(3), the trial court retains jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence or to take other appropriate action pursuant to a properly made or filed motion to reconsider sentence. For felony cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor (as in this case), there is no authorization for the court to amend the sentence after execution of the sentence has begun unless the court grants a ti”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Neville, 988 So. 2d 793 - State v. Perkins

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-06-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 2013

7 state decisions

40199420002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*476 Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Dwayne McClure, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Katherine A. Woodward, Law Clerk, New Orleans, for relator.

¶2Before BYRNES, PLOTKIN and WALTZER, JJ.

¶3BYRNES, Judge.

¶4The defendant, Bernard Tillman, pled guilty as charged to La.R.S. 14:65.1, purse snatching, and was sentenced on September 16, 1992 to five years at hard labor with credit for time served.

¶5Tillman was sentenced pursuant to the provisions of LSA-R.S. 15:574.5, the "intensive incarceration program."

¶6On May 16, 1994 Tillman filed a "Motion To Reconsider Sentence" which was tried on June 3, 1994. The trial judge granted Tillman's motion and reduced his sentence to 55 months which made him eligible for immediate parole.

¶7The state applied to this Court for writ of certiorari and prohibition, which we now grant.

¶8The trial court had no authority to reconsider Tillman's sentence. Such actions are governed by LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 881.1 which sets a time limit of "thirty days following the imposition of sentence or within such longer period as the trial court may set at sentence...." LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 881.1A(1).

¶9Tillman's motion to reconsider came many months following the imposition of sentence and no longer period was set by the trial court.

¶10Although the trial court, the defendant and the state all referred to the proceedings below as a "reconsideration" it more properly should have been styled an "amendment of sentence" pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 881 which has no time limit. We do not feel that the failure of the parties to attach the proper label to the proceedings below in any way vitiates the authority conferred upon the trial court to amend sentences by LSA-C.C.P. art. 881. However, LSA-C.C.P. art. 881(B) provides in pertinent part that:

"After commencement of execution of sentence, in felony cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment without hard labor and in misdemeanor cases, the sentencing judge may reduce the sentence or may amend the sentence to place the defendant on supervised probation."

¶11Tillman was convicted of a felony offense and his original sentence was at hard labor. Therefore, the trial court had no authority pursuant to LSA-C.Cr.P. 881(B) to amend or reduce Tillman's sentence.

¶12LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 881(A) is likewise inapplicable as it confers authority to amend only "... prior to the beginning of execution of the sentence."

¶13For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court "amending" and/or "reconsidering" the sentence of the defendant is reversed. The trial court's resentence is vacated, and the original sentence of five years at hard labor with credit for time served is hereby reinstated.

¶14RESENTENCE VACATED; ORIGINAL SENTENCE REINSTATED.

/638/so2d/475 · .json · Public domain