Jacobs v. Cain

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Jacobs v. Cain

842 So. 2d 320, 2003 La. LEXIS 725, 2003 WL 1419858

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 21, 2003

DocketNo. 2002-KP-1717

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 842 So. 2d 320 (Jacobs v. Cain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jacobs v. Cain, 842 So. 2d 320, 2003 La. LEXIS 725, 2003 WL 1419858 (La. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

hORDER

Granted in part. The defendant’s case was transferred from juvenile court to the district court where he pled guilty to one count of aggravated battery. We construe defendant’s argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea to aggravated battery as a challenge to the facial validity of La.Ch.C. art. 305(B)(2)(j), which purports to authorize the transfer of a juvenile charge of aggravated battery committed with a firearm from the juvenile court to the district court. The authority to transfer any juvenile matter to the district court stems from La. Const. art. V, § 19, which allows the legislature to except certain enumerated crimes from otherwise required “special juvenile procedures,” including “a second or subsequent aggravated battery.” (Emphasis added.) However, the defendant was not charged with a second or subsequent aggravated battery. The constitu[321]*321tionality of La.Ch.C. art. 305(B)(2)(j) is a matter in the first instance for the district court to consider, see State v. Brewster, 00-1266 (La.6/30/00), 764 So.2d 945, and the court may do so even when the jurisdictional challenge arises only in the context of postjconviction2 proceedings. See, e.g., State ex rel. Johnson v. Blackburn, 384 So.2d 402, 404 (La.1980); State ex rel. Moore v. Warden, 308 So.2d 749, 752 (La.1975).

Accordingly, this case is remanded to the district court for purposes of providing defendant with the opportunity to plead specifically the unconstitutionality of La. Ch.C. art. 305(B)(2)(j). Thereafter, the trial court shall reconsider relator’s challenge to the validity of his aggravated battery conviction as a jurisdictional matter under La. Const, art. V, § 19. We pretermit consideration of defendant’s additional claim that ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his guilty plea to aggravated battery involuntary pending resolution of the constitutional issue in the district court.

/s/ Jeffrey P. Victory Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

hORDER

Granted in part. The defendant’s case was transferred from juvenile court to the district court where he pled guilty to one count of aggravated battery. We construe defendant’s argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea to aggravated battery as a challenge to the facial validity of La.Ch.C. art. 305(B)(2)(j), which purports to authorize the transfer of a juvenile charge of aggravated battery committed with a firearm from the juvenile court to the district court. The authority to transfer any juvenile matter to the district court stems from La. Const. art. V, § 19, which allows the legislature to except certain enumerated crimes from otherwise required “special juvenile procedures,” including “a second or subsequent aggravated battery.” (Emphasis added.) However, the defendant was not charged with a second or subsequent aggravated battery. The constitu[321]*321tionality of La.Ch.C. art. 305(B)(2)(j) is a matter in the first instance for the district court to consider, see State v. Brewster, 00-1266 (La.6/30/00), 764 So.2d 945, and the court may do so even when the jurisdictional challenge arises only in the context of postjconviction2 proceedings. See, e.g., State ex rel. Johnson v. Blackburn, 384 So.2d 402, 404 (La.1980); State ex rel. Moore v. Warden, 308 So.2d 749, 752 (La.1975).

Accordingly, this case is remanded to the district court for purposes of providing defendant with the opportunity to plead specifically the unconstitutionality of La. Ch.C. art. 305(B)(2)(j). Thereafter, the trial court shall reconsider relator’s challenge to the validity of his aggravated battery conviction as a jurisdictional matter under La. Const, art. V, § 19. We pretermit consideration of defendant’s additional claim that ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his guilty plea to aggravated battery involuntary pending resolution of the constitutional issue in the district court.

/s/ Jeffrey P. Victory Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

842 So. 2d 320, 2003 La. LEXIS 725, 2003 WL 1419858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-cain-la-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack