Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 209, 434 Honorable
Erin Leigh Waddell Garrett, Judge.
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT By: Peggy J. Sullivan, Counsel
E. STEWART, SR. District Attorney, ROSS STEWART OWEN
Assistant District Attorney, Counsel for Appellee.
MOORE, PITMAN, and STEPHENS, JJ.
August 28, 2001, the defendant, Carlos Dewayne Wade, was
convicted of possession with intent to distribute a Schedule
II CDS, in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A)(1), and aggravated
flight from an officer, in violation of La. R.S. 14:108.1(C).
He was subsequently adjudicated a third-felony habitual
offender in December 2001, and sentenced as a result of that
proceeding. However, on May 28, 2019, Wade was resentenced
under State ex rel. Esteen v. State, 2016-0949 (La.
1/30/18), 239 So.3d 233, to 50 years' imprisonment with
the benefit of parole, and no eligibility for probation or
suspension of sentence. Wade now appeals his resentencing.
For the following reasons, we affirm Wade's conviction,
adjudication as a habitual offender, and sentence.
a jury trial, Wade was convicted of possession with intent to
distribute a Schedule II CDS and aggravated flight from an
officer. Thereafter, Wade was adjudicated a third-felony
habitual offender based upon the instant conviction for
possession with intent to distribute a Schedule II CDS, a
prior conviction for armed robbery committed in 1994, and
possession of a Schedule II CDS (cocaine) committed in 1997.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without
benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence.
Wade's conviction, habitual offender adjudication, and
sentence were affirmed on appeal in State v. Wade,
36, 295 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/23/02), 832 So.2d 977, writ
denied, 2002-2875 (La. 4/4/03), 840 So.2d 1213, in which
a more detailed description of the underlying facts is
25, 2018, Wade filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence,
arguing that his life sentence was illegal and, citing
Esteen, supra, and La. R.S. 15:308, he was
entitled to be resentenced under the more lenient penalty
provisions of La. R.S. 15:529.1 as amended in 2001. Thus, the
trial court issued an order granting Wade's motion and
setting a hearing date for resentencing. The state opposed
the trial court's order, arguing it was premature to
grant Wade's motion to correct illegal sentence. The
state sought a contradictory hearing to consider the matter.
November 26, 2018, an amended order was filed, which
rescinded the trial court's previous order and granted
the state's request for a contradictory hearing. At that
hearing, the trial court denied Wade's motion to correct
illegal sentence. Wade sought supervisory review by this
court, and ultimately his writ was granted in part and
remanded with instructions. State v. Wade, 52,
692-KW (La.App. 2d Cir. 1/18/19). In that writ order, it was
determined that Wade qualified for application of the 2001
ameliorative provisions of La. R.S. 15:529.1. However, remand
was necessary because it was unclear from the record whether
Wade was convicted of possession of a Schedule II CDS
(cocaine), an offense committed in 1997 under La. R.S.
40:967(C) or under a subsection of La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1).
Thus, the trial court was instructed to make a specific
judicial determination from Wade's record to establish
whether he was sentenced under the provisions of La. R.S.
40:967(C) or La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1) for his 1997 possession of
28, 2019, the trial court determined that Wade's 1997
conviction for possession of cocaine was under La. R.S.
40:967(C) and that his life sentence was no longer authorized
by law. Wade was resentenced to 50 years' imprisonment
with the benefit of parole, and no eligibility for probation
or suspension of sentence, under La. R.S.
15:529.1(A)(1)(b)(i). On July 3, 2019, Wade filed a counseled
motion to reconsider sentence, asserting that his sentence
was constitutionally excessive. The trial court denied the
motion. On July 8, 2019, Wade filed a pro se motion
to reconsider sentence. He asserted that the prior
convictions used in his habitual offender adjudication should
be vacated because the trial court failed to "ascertain
such facts" prior to resentencing. The trial court did
not rule on Wade's pro se motion to reconsider
sentence. This appeal followed.
to Reconsider Sentence
we will consider Wade's assignment of error in which he
submits that the trial court erred in denying the motions to
reconsider sentence in this matter; however, he does not make
any specific argument regarding this assignment of error, but
notes that "as all the assignments of error related to
the sentence, they will be argued together," and he
"does not wish to waive any assignments of error."
In response, the state argues that the motions to reconsider
sentence were untimely as they were not filed within 30 days
of Wade's ...