Date: 12-11-2016

Case Style:

Case Number: 16-KA-336

Judge: Susan M. Chehardy, Stephen J. Windhorst, and Hans J. Liljeberg

Court: FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Terry M. Boudreaux
Anne M. Wallis
Angad Ghai
Marko Marjanovic

Defendant's Attorney:

Mary Roper

Description: On November 10, 2015, a unanimous twelve-person jury convicted
defendant of attempted aggravated rape1 and sexual battery of a victim under the
age of thirteen, violations of La. R.S. 14:27:42 and La. R.S. 14:43.1, respectively.
Defendant filed a motion for new trial on November 13, 2015; yet, the court
neglected to grant or deny relief on this motion in its ruling of November 19, 2015:
“In consideration of the foregoing motion, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Noe
Aguliar2 Benitez December 10th 2015.”
This defective ruling was not corrected and the court imposed sentence on
December 10, 2015. For his conviction of attempted aggravated rape, defendant
was sentenced to fifty years at hard labor without benefits. And for his conviction
of sexual battery, defendant was sentenced to ninety-nine years at hard labor
without benefits.
On December 12, 2015, defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, re
filed his motion for new trial, and filed a motion for appeal. On December 21,
2015, the court ordered a rule to show cause on the motion to reconsider, setting
the matter for hearing on February 4, 2016. On January 19, 2016, the court ruled
that defendant’s re-filed motion for new trial was “moot,” noting “RTSC 2/4/16.”3
And on January 28, 2016, the court granted defendant’s motion for appeal.
Following several continuances, the rule to show cause was heard on May
16, 2016. At the conclusion of this hearing, the court denied defendant’s motion
for new trial and his motion to reconsider sentence. On May 22, 2016, defendant
filed a motion to appeal these rulings, which the court granted on May 25, 2016.
DISCUSSION
This case presents several procedural irregularities. For ease of correction,
we address only the initial defect: the district court’s failure to dispose of
defendant’s motion for new trial before sentencing.
Generally, a motion for new trial must be filed and disposed of before
sentencing.4 La. C.Cr.P. art. 853(A). Since the court’s November 19, 2015 ruling
on defendant’s motion for new trial neither granted nor denied relief, we find
defendant’s motion for new trial, timely filed on November 13, 2015, was not
disposed of before sentence was imposed on December 10, 2015. This Court has
routinely held that a trial court’s failure to rule on the merits of a motion for new
trial prior to sentencing constitutes an error patent on the face of the record,
requiring that the sentence be vacated and the case be remanded for a ruling on the
motion. State v. Robinson, 14-453 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/23/14), 167 So.3d 793, 799
800 (citing State v. Williams, 11-65 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/13/11), 81 So.3d 908, 909;
State v. Munson, 11-54 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/15/11), 78 So.3d 290, 292; State v.
Morgan, 06-529 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/12/06), 948 So.2d 199, 207; State v. Stec, 99
633 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/30/99), 749 So.2d 784, 790; State v. Pineyro, 93-765 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 1/25/94), 631 So.2d 1203, 1206). Accordingly, we must vacate
defendant’s sentences and remand the matter for the district court to rule on
defendant’s motion for new trial filed on November 13, 2015. In addition, though
we see no need to expressly rule, for the sake of clarity, we choose to vacate all of
the district court’s rulings after December 10, 2015. So that upon remand, this
matter will be in the same procedural posture as it was when defendant filed his
motion for new trial on November 13, 2015.

Outcome: