STATE v. ROMERO, 08-1201 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/1/09)

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JOSEPH ANTHONY ROMERO.

No. 08-1201.Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
April 1, 2009. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Page 1

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 07-394, HONORABLE EDWARD M. LEONARD, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE.

J. Phil Haney, District Attorney, 16th Judicial District, Walter J. Senette, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, 16th Judicial District, St. Mary Parish Courthouse Franklin, LA, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana.

Peggy J. Sullivan Louisiana Appellate Project, Monroe, LA, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Joseph Anthony Romero.

Court composed of OSWALD A. DECUIR, JIMMIE C. PETERS, and MARC T. AMY, Judges.

Page 2

PETERS, J.

A six-person jury convicted the defendant, Joseph Anthony Romero, of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a violation of La.R.S. 14:68.4, and of aggravated flight from an officer, a violation of La.R.S. 4:108.1. The trial court initially sentenced the defendant to serve ten years at hard labor on the first conviction and two years at hard labor on the second. Thereafter, the State of Louisiana filed a bill of information charging the defendant as an habitual offender pursuant to La.R.S. 15:529.1. After a hearing, the trial court found the defendant to be a fourth felony offender, vacated the previously imposed sentences, and sentenced him to seventy years at hard labor. The defendant has appealed this adjudication and sentence, and for the following reasons, we reverse the habitual offender adjudication, vacate the sentence, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

In a separate appeal, State v. Romero, 08-1102 (La.App. 3 Cir. ___/___/09), ___ So.2d ___, the defendant contested the validity of the convictions of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and of aggravated flight from an officer. In that appeal, we concluded that the record before us required reversal of those convictions and remanded that case to the trial court for further proceedings. Because we reversed the defendant’s convictions for the underlying offenses, we must also reverse the habitual offender adjudication that was based on them.

DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the defendant’s habitual offender adjudication, vacate the sentence imposed, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3, UniformRules, Courts of Appeal.

jdjungle