STATE v. BRIGGS (2025)

Steven Byron Briggs (“Defendant”) is before this court seeking correction of the Uniform Commitment Order (“UCO”). For the following reasons, we remand this matter to the trial court for correction of the UCO.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged by bill of information with possession of twenty-eight grams or more of methamphetamine, a violation of La.R.S. 40:967(B)(1)(b) and (D). Pursuant to a plea agreement entered between Defendant and the State, the State dismissed a pending bill of information, and Defendant's sentence for possession of methamphetamine was to be determined by the court. The court ordered a presentence investigation report and subsequently sentenced Defendant to seventeen years at hard labor. Defendant is before this court seeking correction of the UCO.

FACTS

The following factual basis was set forth in Defendant's guilty plea:

Your Honor, the State contends that on or about June 21, 2024, Agent Black with the Vernon Parish Narcotics Task Force was conducting criminal patrol in the area of Highway 28 and Highway 1213 here in Vernon Parish, Louisiana. He observed a vehicle making an illegal u-turn then conducted a traffic stop. During the traffic stop he encountered this defendant. After speaking with this defendant he asked permission to search the vehicle, which he was granted. At this time he found in the vehicle a clear plastic bag containing a white crystal like substance located under the driver's seat within the dominion and control of this defendant. Then the substance was then collected as evidence, and it was tested by the Louisiana Crime Lab yielding an amount over 28 grams and being a Scheduled [sic] II controlled dangerous substance, therefore, being Meth.

ASSIGNMENT OR ERROR

In his sole assignment of error, Defendant asserts: “Despite the court's recommendation for treatment and statement of no objection to work release, the Uniform Sentencing Commitment Order issued in this case reflects no ‘referrals to [Department of Public Safety and Corrections].’ Remand should be ordered to correct the Uniform Sentencing Commitment Order.”

APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS

Defendant alleges the trial court recommended treatment at Blue Walters and also indicated it was “OK” with work release. According to Defendant, the transcript and minutes of sentencing correctly reflect the trial court's recognition of his need and desire for treatment and willingness to work. Despite this, the UCO reflects no referrals for either treatment or work release. Thus, Defendant seeks correction of the UCO.

APPELLEE'S POSITION

The State argues Defendant's request should be denied because the trial court did not affirmatively recommend Defendant for drug treatment or participation in the work release program. The State contends Defendant's failure to raise these specific arguments in his motion to reconsider sentence precludes Defendant from raising said arguments on appeal. Furthermore, the State asserts that the trial court's failure to note recommendations on the UCO is not cognizable as an error patent by this court.

ERRORS PATENT

In 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 find there is one error patent which was raised and discussed in the foregoing assigned error. Additionally, we find the court minutes of sentencing require correction.

As discussed below, the sentencing transcript reveals the trial court did not recommend work release. However, the court minutes indicate that this was recommended by the trial court. “[W]hen the minutes and the transcript conflict, the transcript prevails.” State v. Wommack, 00-137, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/7/00), 770 So.2d 365, 369, writ denied, 00-2051 (La. 9/21/01), 797 So.2d 62. Thus, we order the trial court to correct the sentencing minutes to delete the recommendation of work release.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

In Defendant's sole assignment of error, he requests his case be remanded for correction of the UCO to reflect the trial court's recommendation of treatment at Blue Walters and the court's “non-objection” to work release. A review of the UCO reflects no referrals were made to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Thus, Defendant requests correction of the UCO to include these recommendations, as reflected in both the sentencing transcript and court minutes. Defendant additionally requests that the clerk of court's office should be ordered to transmit the corrected UCO to the officer in charge of the institution to which Defendant has been sentenced as required in State ex rel. Roland v. State, 06-244 (La. 9/15/06), 937 So.2d 846.

At sentencing, the following colloquy occurred regarding the court's recommendations:

BY THE COURT:

․

It's the sentence of [the] Court that on 99,805 that you serve 17 years at hard labor with Louisiana Department of Corrections. Now you're not going to do 17 years, I mean, you probably know exactly how much time you can do I just can't tell you that because DOC is the only one that can figure that up, okay? You would have to be a math genius to figure that up, but you will be out again, okay? ․

BY MS. NELSON:

Your Honor, can we request that -- first of all just note our objection for the record, but secondly, that while incarcerated that he receive some intensive substance abuse [treatment]. I know that we talked about it at the sentencing hearing that it was one of his issues and that he be considered for any programs like work release or anything like that.

BY THE COURT:

Right. I mean, is it Blue Walters?

BY MS. NELSON:

Yes.

BY THE COURT:

Yeah, I would recommend you for treatment at Blue Walters. Now that's left up to DOC, you know, and I'm okay with even work release, okay? I mean, I put somebody in jail for 60 years and I've been here 11 years and they - - I'm sorry, they were massive dope dealers and I've got pre-paroles on them already. So, you know, they're not going to keep you the whole time is what I'm saying, but DOC is the only one that does that. You go in there and get all the help you can get out and you come out and show us, okay?

BY MR. BRIGGS:

Yes, sir.

Listed on the UCO are four possible referrals to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, none of which were selected or “checked” in this case. They are: “Recommended for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Screening; Recommended for Mental Health Evaluation; Recommended for Intensive Incarceration;” and “Recommended for Immediate Screening for Eligibility for Transitional Work Program.” Under this list appears a “comment” section which contains no comments.¹

On appeal, the State asserts the trial court did not recommend work release, and even if it had, the absence of the recommendation from the UCO was waived as the issue was not raised in Defendant's motion to reconsider sentence and is also not recognizable as an error patent.

First, we note that errors in the UCO are routinely corrected by this court as part of its errors patent review. See State v. Self, 25-29 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/28/25), 416 So.3d 733; State v. Levine, 24-493 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/19/25), 408 So.3d 1108; State v. Barker, 24-379 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/5/25), 407 So.3d 776, writ denied, 25-257 (La. 4/23/25), 406 So.3d 1179. Thus, the fact that this issue was not raised in the motion to reconsider sentence is irrelevant.

We understand the judge's statements at sentencing as recommending treatment at Blue Walters; however, the court's statement that it was “okay” with work release was not a recommendation. For this reason, we order the trial court to correct the UCO to reflect the trial court's recommendation of treatment at Blue Walters. Additionally, as requested by Defendant, we order the trial court to transmit a corrected UCO to the “officer in charge of the institution to which defendant has been sentenced as well as the Department of Corrections’ legal department.” State v. Durant, 24-243, pp. 16–17 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/26/25), 406 So.3d 736, 749.

DECREE

We remand this matter and instruct the trial court to correct the sentencing minutes to delete the recommendation of work release and to correct the Uniform Commitment Order to reflect the trial court's recommendation of treatment at Blue Walters. The clerk of court is directed to transmit the corrected Uniform Commitment Order to the officer in charge of the institution to which Defendant has been sentenced as well as the Department of Corrections’ legal department.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

FOOTNOTES

1.   According to https://www.lasc.org/judicial_admin/forms/UCO_Instructions.pdf, the comments section is “intended for any additional instructions/recommendations and sentencing enhancements from the judge that are relative to the offender's incarceration.” This court is allowed to take judicial notice of these instructions. See State v. Carpenter, 00-436 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/18/00), 772 So.2d 200, writ denied, 00-3152 (La.1/25/02), 806 So.2d 665.

PERRY, Judge.