STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF NO. 24-K-600 M.W., JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
January 07, 2025
Linda Wiseman First Deputy Clerk
IN RE M.W., JR.
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE JEFFERSON PARISH JUVENILE COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE AMANDA L. CALOGERO, DIVISION "B", NUMBER 23-JU-42
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson
WRIT DENIED
In this juvenile matter, defendant, M.W., seeks supervisory review of the
juvenile judge’s ruling which granted the State’s motion to continue the
adjudication hearing on charges “C-G”, and denied the juvenile attorney’s motion
to dismiss those charges. For the following reasons, we deny this writ application.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 27, 2023, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a petition
alleging that M.W. committed criminal trespass in violation of La. R.S. 14:63 (“*”)
(count one); criminal trespass in violation of La. R.S. 14:63 (“A”) (count two); and
second degree battery in violation of La. R.S. 14:34.1 (“B”) (count three). On May
31, 2023, the State dismissed the “B” charge, and on October 13, 2023, the
juvenile judge dismissed the “*” and “A” charges.
On February 22, 2024, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a petition
alleging that the juvenile committed unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in violation of La. R.S. 14:68.4 (“C”) (count one) and resisting an officer in violation
of La. R.S. 14:108 (“D”) (count two). On February 27, 2024, the juvenile denied
the “C” and “D” allegations, and the adjudication hearing was set within thirty
days, for March 27, 2024. On March 27, 2024, the juvenile judge found good
cause to continue the matter due to the juvenile not being eligible for diversion at
that time. The adjudication hearing was re-set for May 1, 2024, relative to the “C”
and “D” charges.
On April 3, 2024, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a petition
alleging that the juvenile committed three counts of bank fraud in violation of La.
R.S. 14:71.1 (“E,” “F,” and “G”) (counts one, two, and three). On April 8, 2024,
the juvenile denied the allegations of petition “E,” “F,” and “G.” Within 30 days,
on May 1, 2024, the juvenile was accepted into diversion on the “C,” “D,” “E,”
“F,” and “G” charges, and the status/adjudication hearing was marked “satisfied.”
On June 7, 2024, there was a hearing on a “deputy warrant – crime of
violence” and a continued custody hearing. The juvenile judge found probable
cause for continued custody as to new charges of attempted armed robbery, armed
robbery, and illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile. The juvenile’s attorney
specifically waived delays on the non-crime of violence charges (“C-G”) to be set
to coincide with the crime of violence charges (“H-J”). The State indicated that it
would file a motion to revoke the “IAA” and set the adjudication on the “C, D, E,
F, G” charges on August 6, 2024.
On August 2, 2024, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a petition
alleging that the juvenile committed illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile
in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.8 (“H”) (count one); armed robbery in violation of
La. R.S. 14:64 (“I”) (count two); and attempted armed robbery in violation of La.
R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:64 (“J”) (count three). On August 6, 2024, the juvenile denied the allegations of the “H,” “I,” and
“J” petitions. The juvenile judge granted the State’s motion to have the “C-G”
complaints set for adjudication as the juvenile’s new complaints resulted in him
being unsuccessfully discharged from diversion. The juvenile’s attorney waived
delays. The “PNIC”/adjudication was set for September 4, 2024, as to the “C, D,
E, F, G, H, I, J” charges. On September 4, 2024, the parties requested that the
hearing be continued, and the juvenile judge granted the continuance. The
“PNIC”/adjudication hearing was set for October 2, 2024, on the “C-J” charges.
On September 27, 2024, the juvenile’s attorney filed a written Motion to
Continue Adjudication, requesting that the adjudication set for October 2, 2024 be
continued because he was still in the process of receiving discovery relative to the
defense. He asserted that the State had no opposition to this request. The
juvenile’s attorney prayed that an order be issued to continue the adjudication to
another date “with defense counsel waiving delays and with a finding of good
cause.” The juvenile judge continued the matter until November 6, 2024.
On November 6, 2024, the State and the juvenile’s attorney appeared for an
adjudication hearing on “C-J.” The prosecutor said it was ready to proceed on
“H,” “I,” and “J,” namely, juvenile in possession of a handgun, armed robbery, and
attempted armed robbery. She asked for a continuance on “C-G,” pointing out that
they were separate incidents and that it would require too much time to conduct
both hearings on the same day. She also asserted that they had a victim who was
out-of-state and that they needed to coordinate her presence in court. The
juvenile’s attorney responded that those were not good causes for a continuance
under La. Ch.C. art. 877. Following lengthy arguments of counsel, the juvenile
judge granted the State’s continuance of the adjudication hearing on “C-G” and
denied the motion to dismiss those allegations. The juvenile judge believed that
the delays caused by the juvenile’s referral to diversion and the joint continuance of the adjudication hearing on September 4, 2024, tolled the prescriptive period
under Article 877. The juvenile judge also ruled that there would be an expedited
adjudication hearing on “C-G” that she wanted set in less than thirty days. The
minute entry shows that the adjudication hearing as to “C, D, E, F, G” was set for
December 4, 2024. Also on November 6, 2024, an adjudication hearing was held
on “H,” “I,” and “J,” after which the juvenile judge acquitted the juvenile.
On November 12, 2024, the juvenile’s attorney filed a timely Notice of Writ
and Request for Stay. The juvenile judge set a return date of December 12, 2024,
and granted a stay of the proceedings.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In this writ application, the juvenile’s attorney argues that the juvenile judge
erred by granting the State’s motion to continue the adjudication hearing on the
“C,” “D,” “E,” “F,” and “G” charges and by denying his motion to dismiss those
charges. He contends that there was no just cause under La. Ch.C. art. 877 to
continue the hearing. The juvenile’s attorney asserts that the State maintained that
an adjudication hearing could not go forward on those charges because it would
take up too much time and because it needed time to coordinate the out-of-state
victim’s presence for the hearing. He argues that those reasons do not constitute
good cause. The juvenile’s attorney contends that the State had sufficient notice of
the adjudication date, the juvenile judge ordered the witnesses to be notified, and
the State presented no evidence to support its contentions.
La. Ch.C. art. 877, entitled “Adjudication hearing; time limitations,”
provides:
A. When the child is charged with a crime of violence as defined in R.S.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF NO. 24-K-600 M.W., JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
January 07, 2025
Linda Wiseman First Deputy Clerk
IN RE M.W., JR.
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE JEFFERSON PARISH JUVENILE COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE AMANDA L. CALOGERO, DIVISION "B", NUMBER 23-JU-42
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson
WRIT DENIED
In this juvenile matter, defendant, M.W., seeks supervisory review of the
juvenile judge’s ruling which granted the State’s motion to continue the
adjudication hearing on charges “C-G”, and denied the juvenile attorney’s motion
to dismiss those charges. For the following reasons, we deny this writ application.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 27, 2023, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a petition
alleging that M.W. committed criminal trespass in violation of La. R.S. 14:63 (“*”)
(count one); criminal trespass in violation of La. R.S. 14:63 (“A”) (count two); and
second degree battery in violation of La. R.S. 14:34.1 (“B”) (count three). On May
31, 2023, the State dismissed the “B” charge, and on October 13, 2023, the
juvenile judge dismissed the “*” and “A” charges.
On February 22, 2024, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a petition
alleging that the juvenile committed unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in violation of La. R.S. 14:68.4 (“C”) (count one) and resisting an officer in violation
of La. R.S. 14:108 (“D”) (count two). On February 27, 2024, the juvenile denied
the “C” and “D” allegations, and the adjudication hearing was set within thirty
days, for March 27, 2024. On March 27, 2024, the juvenile judge found good
cause to continue the matter due to the juvenile not being eligible for diversion at
that time. The adjudication hearing was re-set for May 1, 2024, relative to the “C”
and “D” charges.
On April 3, 2024, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a petition
alleging that the juvenile committed three counts of bank fraud in violation of La.
R.S. 14:71.1 (“E,” “F,” and “G”) (counts one, two, and three). On April 8, 2024,
the juvenile denied the allegations of petition “E,” “F,” and “G.” Within 30 days,
on May 1, 2024, the juvenile was accepted into diversion on the “C,” “D,” “E,”
“F,” and “G” charges, and the status/adjudication hearing was marked “satisfied.”
On June 7, 2024, there was a hearing on a “deputy warrant – crime of
violence” and a continued custody hearing. The juvenile judge found probable
cause for continued custody as to new charges of attempted armed robbery, armed
robbery, and illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile. The juvenile’s attorney
specifically waived delays on the non-crime of violence charges (“C-G”) to be set
to coincide with the crime of violence charges (“H-J”). The State indicated that it
would file a motion to revoke the “IAA” and set the adjudication on the “C, D, E,
F, G” charges on August 6, 2024.
On August 2, 2024, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a petition
alleging that the juvenile committed illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile
in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.8 (“H”) (count one); armed robbery in violation of
La. R.S. 14:64 (“I”) (count two); and attempted armed robbery in violation of La.
R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:64 (“J”) (count three). On August 6, 2024, the juvenile denied the allegations of the “H,” “I,” and
“J” petitions. The juvenile judge granted the State’s motion to have the “C-G”
complaints set for adjudication as the juvenile’s new complaints resulted in him
being unsuccessfully discharged from diversion. The juvenile’s attorney waived
delays. The “PNIC”/adjudication was set for September 4, 2024, as to the “C, D,
E, F, G, H, I, J” charges. On September 4, 2024, the parties requested that the
hearing be continued, and the juvenile judge granted the continuance. The
“PNIC”/adjudication hearing was set for October 2, 2024, on the “C-J” charges.
On September 27, 2024, the juvenile’s attorney filed a written Motion to
Continue Adjudication, requesting that the adjudication set for October 2, 2024 be
continued because he was still in the process of receiving discovery relative to the
defense. He asserted that the State had no opposition to this request. The
juvenile’s attorney prayed that an order be issued to continue the adjudication to
another date “with defense counsel waiving delays and with a finding of good
cause.” The juvenile judge continued the matter until November 6, 2024.
On November 6, 2024, the State and the juvenile’s attorney appeared for an
adjudication hearing on “C-J.” The prosecutor said it was ready to proceed on
“H,” “I,” and “J,” namely, juvenile in possession of a handgun, armed robbery, and
attempted armed robbery. She asked for a continuance on “C-G,” pointing out that
they were separate incidents and that it would require too much time to conduct
both hearings on the same day. She also asserted that they had a victim who was
out-of-state and that they needed to coordinate her presence in court. The
juvenile’s attorney responded that those were not good causes for a continuance
under La. Ch.C. art. 877. Following lengthy arguments of counsel, the juvenile
judge granted the State’s continuance of the adjudication hearing on “C-G” and
denied the motion to dismiss those allegations. The juvenile judge believed that
the delays caused by the juvenile’s referral to diversion and the joint continuance of the adjudication hearing on September 4, 2024, tolled the prescriptive period
under Article 877. The juvenile judge also ruled that there would be an expedited
adjudication hearing on “C-G” that she wanted set in less than thirty days. The
minute entry shows that the adjudication hearing as to “C, D, E, F, G” was set for
December 4, 2024. Also on November 6, 2024, an adjudication hearing was held
on “H,” “I,” and “J,” after which the juvenile judge acquitted the juvenile.
On November 12, 2024, the juvenile’s attorney filed a timely Notice of Writ
and Request for Stay. The juvenile judge set a return date of December 12, 2024,
and granted a stay of the proceedings.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In this writ application, the juvenile’s attorney argues that the juvenile judge
erred by granting the State’s motion to continue the adjudication hearing on the
“C,” “D,” “E,” “F,” and “G” charges and by denying his motion to dismiss those
charges. He contends that there was no just cause under La. Ch.C. art. 877 to
continue the hearing. The juvenile’s attorney asserts that the State maintained that
an adjudication hearing could not go forward on those charges because it would
take up too much time and because it needed time to coordinate the out-of-state
victim’s presence for the hearing. He argues that those reasons do not constitute
good cause. The juvenile’s attorney contends that the State had sufficient notice of
the adjudication date, the juvenile judge ordered the witnesses to be notified, and
the State presented no evidence to support its contentions.
La. Ch.C. art. 877, entitled “Adjudication hearing; time limitations,”
provides:
A. When the child is charged with a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(B) and the child is continued in custody pursuant to Chapter 5 of this Title, the adjudication hearing shall commence within sixty days of the appearance to answer the petition. In all other cases, if the child is continued in custody pursuant to Chapter 5 of this Title, the adjudication hearing shall commence within thirty days of the appearance to answer the petition. B. If the child is not continued in custody, the adjudication hearing shall commence within ninety days of the appearance to answer the petition. C. If the hearing has not been commenced timely, upon motion of the child, the court shall release a child continued in custody and shall dismiss the petition. D. For good cause, the court may extend such period. What constitutes good cause, i.e., legally sufficient reasons, for dismissal of
a juvenile delinquency matter must be determined on a case-by-case basis and
must be fully supported by the record. State in the Interest of R.W., 16-1187 (La.
App. 4 Cir. 3/2/17), 213 So.3d 13, 17, writ denied, 17-411 (La. 10/27/17), 228
So.3d 1225. A trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining good
cause to continue a delinquency adjudication hearing outside the statutory time
limits. State in the Interest of T.W., 13-1564 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/14/14), 141 So.3d
822, 826-27, writ denied, 14-1215 (La. 6/30/14), 148 So.3d 183.
In State in Interest of D.M., 12-787 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/30/13), 119 So.3d
763, 768, writ denied, 13-1562 (La. 2/7/14), 131 So.3d 853, this Court found that
the third continuance based on the absence of a co-defendant’s mother and a State
witness and the fourth continuance based on the absence of a co-defendant’s
counsel and mother provided good cause under Article 877.
In State v. Smith, 16-393 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/23/16), 204 So.3d 1035, 1037-
38, a non-juvenile case involving the timely institution of prosecution, the
appellate court pointed out that the defendant had incorrectly included in his
calculation of the delay period the time when he was enrolled in the diversion
program. The appellate court further pointed out that when the defendant entered
the diversion program, he agreed to waive his rights to the time limitations for
prosecution and trial.
Upon review, we find that the juvenile judge had good cause under Article
877(D) to continue the adjudication hearing on “C-G” based on the delays caused
by the juvenile’s referral to diversion on May 1, 2024; the waiver of delays by the juvenile’s attorney on June 7, 2024; the joint request for a continuance of the
adjudication hearing on September 4, 2024; and the juvenile attorney’s September
27, 2024 written Motion to Continue Adjudication, wherein he stated that he
waived delays. See Smith, supra. Additionally, we find that there was good cause
for the delay based on the prosecutor’s representation that she needed a
continuance to obtain the presence of an out-of-state witness. See State in Interest
of D.M., supra. The juvenile judge reset the adjudication as to “C, D, E, F, G” on
December 4, 2024, within thirty days of November 6, 2024.1 Finally, the juvenile
judge stated that she was only going to grant the State one continuance.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the juvenile judge did not abuse her
discretion by continuing the adjudication hearing and denying the motion to
dismiss the “C-G” charges. Accordingly, this writ application is denied.
Gretna, Louisiana, this 7th day of January, 2025.
JGG FHW MEJ
1 However, as previously noted, the juvenile judge granted the juvenile attorney’s request for a stay. SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIRST DEPUTY CLERK SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C. LEDET JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS DAY 01/07/2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
24-K-600 E-NOTIFIED Juvenile Court (Clerk) Honorable Amanda L. Calogero (DISTRICT JUDGE) Brian A. Pena (Relator) Thomas J. Butler (Respondent) Mark D. Plaisance (Relator)
MAILED Remy V. Starns (Relator) Aimee Thibert (Respondent) Marcus J. Plaisance (Relator) Attorney at Law Assistant District Attorney Attorney at Law 301 Main Street Juvenile Division - Jefferson Parish Post Office Box 1123 Suite 700 1546 Gretna Boulevard Prairieville, LA 70769 Baton Rouge, LA 70825 Harvey, LA 70058