FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF
VERMILION, NO. 58118 HONORABLE LAURIE A. HULIN, DISTRICT
Annette Fuller Roach Louisiana Appellate Project COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Ricky Wayne Miller
Keith A. Stutes Lafayette Parish DA COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: State of Louisiana
P. Hamilton, Jr. Attorney at Law COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: State of Louisiana Ricky Wayne Miller
composed of D. Kent Savoie, Van H. Kyzar, and David E.
KENT SAVOIE JUDGE
January 12, 2016, Defendant, Ricky Wayne Miller, entered a
guilty plea to possession of clonazepam with the intent to
distribute, a violation of La. R.S. 40:969(A)(1), in district
court docket number 58118. On May 13, 2016, as part of the plea
agreement, Defendant was sentenced to five years at hard
labor to run concurrently with all of the sentences imposed
at the May 13, 2016, proceeding.A motion to reconsider sentence
was not filed.
appeals assigning the following errors:
1. The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences in
violation of the plea agreement set forth on the record at
the time of the pleas of guilty.
2. Trial court [sic] rendered assistance below that
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of United States
Constitution by failing to object to the court's failure
to impose sentences in compliance with the plea agreement.
guilty plea proceeding, the State set forth a factual basis
for the charge. The State explained that during the execution
of an arrest warrant, a routine search was conducted. During
the search, a pill bottle with eighteen "green"
pills was found on Defendant.
accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are
reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record. After
reviewing the record, we found no errors patent present.
OF ERROR NUMBER ONE
complains that the plea agreement was breached. In the
transcript of the January 12, 2016 proceeding, the plea
agreement was set forth in open court. It provided a
sentencing cap of twenty-five years at hard labor, and the
State agreed that it would not file a multiple offender bill.
Additionally, the following pertinent exchange occurred:
[COURT]: All right. So Docket No. 58075, 58080, 58133, 59219,
59221, 59224, 59253, 59259, and 59572 are all going to run
MS. YOUNG: Correct, with Docket No. 58118.
[COURT]: All right. That's what's agreed upon?
MS. YOUNG: Correct.
[COURT]: And then the Court will decide whether or not to run
58118 concurrent or consecutive, after the sentencing Hearing
MR. HAMILTON: That is correct, Your ...