State v. DupreeState v. Dupree
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Sullivan
On May 4, 2005, Defendant, Christopher Tromondo Dupree, and Deurlo Derrick Champagne were charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of
Defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider Sentence, which the trial court denied. He then filed a Motion and Order to Appeal Sentence. In his brief, Defendant assigns four errors. Three of the assignments concern his conviction; one concerns his sentence. For the fоllowing reasons, we amend Defendant‘s sentence and affirm it as amended.
Facts
When he pled guilty, Defendant admitted that on April 19, 2005, he was a passenger in a rental car driven by Mr. Champagne and that they were transporting thirty pounds of marijuana from Texas to Florida for distribution.
Defendant assigns the following errors with his sentence, which he contends constitute reversible error: 1) his attorney failed to seek review of or preserve for appellatе review the trial court‘s ruling on his motion to suppress, which constituted ineffective assistance of counsel; 2) his lawyer‘s representation of his co-defendant caused mixed lоyalties, which also constituted ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer was not free to fully explore all plea bargain avenues available to him, especially those that would be beneficial to him but detrimental to his co-defendant; and 3) the trial court failed to advise him of his right to conflict-free representation as required by
In his Motion and Order to Appeal Sentence, Defendant appealed his sentence on the basis that it is excessive; he did not appeal his convictiоn. Therefore, the trial court entered an order of appeal solely for his sentence, and Defendant‘s claims attacking his conviction are not properly before this court for review. There is jurisprudence which holds that an appellate сourt should consider assignments of error not filed with the trial court. However, Defendant assigns еrror with a judgment he did not appeal, his conviction. Accordingly, the three assignments of error which concern his conviction are not properly before this court and will not be addressed.
Errors Patent
In accordance with
The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve fifteen years at hard labоr with the first five years to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence with credit for time served. When Defendant committed the present offеnse, the penalty provision for possession with the intent to distribute marijuana provided for a sentence of five to thirty years at hard labor and a fine of not more than $50,000.00.
The trial court had the discretion to susрend all or part of Defendant‘s sentence and place him on probation,
Disposition
Defendant‘s assignments of error pertaining to his conviction are not properly before this court and have not been considered. Defendant‘s sentence is amended to delete the provision that the first five years of said sentence must be served without benefit of parole.