Appeal from the Seventeenth Judicial District Court In and
for the Parish of Lafourche State of Louisiana Docket No.
567443 Honorable F. Hugh Larose, Judge Presiding
Kristine Russell District Attorney Joseph S. Soignet
Assistant District Attorney Thibodaux, Louisiana Counsel for
Appellee State of Louisiana
T. Vo Clark Mandeville, Louisiana Counsel for
Defendant/Appellant Rusty J. Lebouef
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C J., McCLENDON, AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ.
Rusty J. Leboeuf, was charged by bill of information with
indecent behavior with a juvenile (victim under the age of
thirteen), a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:81. Defendant entered a
plea of not guilty and, following a jury trial, was found
guilty as charged. Defendant was sentenced to fifteen years
imprisonment at hard labor. Defendant now appeals,
designating two assignments of error. For the following
reasons, we affirm the conviction, vacate the sentence, and
remand to the trial court for resentencing, correction of the
minutes and, if necessary, correction of the commitment
of 2017, twelve-year-old K.C. lived in Cut Off, Louisiana, in
Lafourche Parish, with her mother, brothers, and her
mother's boyfriend, the defendant. In the early morning
hours of June 16, 2017, K.C. had fallen asleep on the couch
in the living room. According to K.C, at about 6:00 a.m., she
was awakened by defendant, who had placed his penis in her
hand. K.C. hurriedly turned over on the couch and feigned
still being asleep, until defendant walked away. Later that
same day, K.C. told her brother, who told his mother and
uncle. The police were called. Defendant testified at trial.
He had prior convictions for forgery, simple burglary, and
unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling. Defendant
admitted that he was in the living room on the couch with
K.C. the night she fell asleep. He insisted, however, that he
never removed his penis from his clothes.
OF ERROR NOS. 1 and 2
these related assignments of error, defendant argues,
respectively, that the trial court erred in denying the
motion to reconsider sentence and that his sentence is
thorough review of the record indicates that defendant did
not make or file a written motion to reconsider sentence
based on any specific ground following the trial court's
imposition of the sentence. Under LSA-C.Cr.P. arts. 881.1E
and 881.2A(1), the failure to make or file a motion to
reconsider sentence shall preclude a defendant from raising
an objection to the sentence on appeal, including a claim of
excessiveness. See State v. Mims, 619 So.2d 1059
(La. 1993) (per curiam). Defendant, therefore, is
procedurally barred from having his assignments of error
reviewed because of his failure to file a motion to
reconsider sentence after being sentenced. See State v.
Duncan, 94-1563 (La.App. 1 Cir.
12/15/95), 667 So.2d 1141, 1143 (en banc per curiam).
assignments of error are without merit.
errors not assigned, we are limited in our review under
LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920(2) to errors discoverable by a mere
inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without
inspection of the evidence. After ...