State ex rel. Williams

411 So. 2d 517, 1982 La. App. LEXIS 6854
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 2, 1982
DocketNo. 14535
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 411 So. 2d 517 (State ex rel. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Williams, 411 So. 2d 517, 1982 La. App. LEXIS 6854 (La. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

PONDER, Judge.

Defendant appealed from a finding of delinquency in a juvenile proceeding for the violation of La.R.S. 14:35 and the terms of his probation and the commitment to the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections for two six month consecutive terms. Although defendant made no assignment of error, we have examined the record and we affirm in part and reverse in part.1

The defendant, a fifteen year old junior high student, did not stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in his homeroom, and refused to accept a disciplinary slip for this conduct. There was conflicting evidence as to whether the teacher tendering the slip pulled the defendant’s desk out from under him causing him to fall to the floor or merely tugged at defendant’s desk to get his attention. When the defendant stood up, a fight between the two ensued. The majority of the testimony indicated that the teacher did not strike the defendant. The trial judge found the defendant guilty of simple battery and violation of his probation.

After making a motion for appeal, defendant’s counsel was relieved of duty and present counsel was appointed.

Juvenile proceedings are not classified as criminal proceedings. In the Interest of Aaron, 405 So.2d 1194 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1981). In Interest of Franklin, 399 So.2d 671 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1981). Where procedures are not provided in the Code of Juvenile Procedure, the courts must follow the Code of Civil Procedure. C.J.P. Art. 24(2).2 However, a juvenile is entitled to [519]*519the protections of due process and all related safeguards guaranteed to one accused of a crime. In Interest of Day, 378 So.2d 511 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979).

An assignment of error in unnecessary. C.C.P. Art. 2129.3

We do not find any error that would warrant reversal of the finding of delinquency and the commitment on the battery. Although there was much conflicting testimony, there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed simple battery. Even assuming that the teacher acted improperly, the evidence shows the defendant used unreasonable and excessive force. La.R.S. 14:19.4

Even if the charge of violation of probation be sufficient, there is no proof of what the terms of the probation are and how they were violated. We therefore reverse on the charge of violation of probation and the commitment of six months thereon.

For these reasons, the decision of the trial judge on the offense of battery is affirmed. The adjudication and disposition on the charge of violation of probation are reversed.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.

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

Related

State in Interest of Handy
559 So. 2d 795 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1990)
State ex rel. Newton
559 So. 2d 801 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1990)
State, in Interest of Ja
532 So. 2d 943 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
411 So. 2d 517, 1982 La. App. LEXIS 6854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-williams-lactapp-1982.