State of Louisiana v. Calvin James Catalon

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 23, 2014
• Docket: KA-0014-0768
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

14-768

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

CALVIN JAMES CATALON

********** APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 09-K-0637-B HONORABLE MARION F. EDWARDS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX CHIEF JUDGE

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Sylvia R. Cooks, and J. David Painter, Judges.

Cooks, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

Earl B. Taylor District Attorney – 27th Judicial District Alisa Ardoin Gothreaux Assistant District Attorney – 27th Judicial District P. O. Drawer 1968 Opelousas, LA 70571 Telephone: (337) 948-0551 COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiff/Appellant - State of Louisiana

Pride Justin Doran Doran & Cawthorne Law Firm, PLLC P. O. Box 2119 Opelousas, LA 70571 Telephone: (337) 235-3989 COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellee - Calvin James Catalon THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

The State appeals the trial court’s grant of Defendant’s Motion to

Quash. The defense based its motion on the State’s alleged failure to commence

trial within the two-year prescriptive period when prosecution was instituted. The

State initiated prosecution against Defendant in 2009. Subsequently, Defendant

was incarcerated in another jurisdiction. After learning Defendant’s out-of-state

custodial location, the State failed to secure his presence in court for nearly two

years. During this period, the defense filed several motions to continue. In

granting Defendant’s Motion to Quash, the trial court found the defense’s motions

to continue did not suspend prescription because they were caused by the State’s

delay in bringing Defendant to court. For reasons other than those cited by the trial

court, we conditionally affirm. Additionally, we remand for an evidentiary hearing

to determine whether a motion potentially suspending prescription was filed on

behalf of the defense.

I.

ISSUE

We shall consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in

finding no suspension occurred within the prescriptive period.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 29, 2009, a grand jury returned an indictment charging

Defendant, Calvin James Catalon, Jr., with two counts of aggravated kidnapping

and one count of aggravated burglary. On June 1, 2010, his attorney requested the matter be reset. Defendant was present in court. The trial court granted the request

and reset the matter for October 12, 2010. Defendant did not appear in court on

this date, however, and was not present in court again until October 1, 2013.

Between Defendant’s court appearances in 2010 and 2013, he was arrested and

extradited to Texas, where he served approximately two years and four months of a

jail sentence on unrelated charges. During this period, the defense filed several

motions to continue, and Defendant changed counsel several times.

The State learned of Defendant’s incarceration on February 1, 2011.

The State told the trial court that it would file a writ to secure Defendant’s presence

in court. The State did not immediately take steps to secure Defendant’s presence,

however, and on October 3, 2011, the State learned that Defendant had been

extradited to Texas. The State again told the court that it would file a writ to

secure Defendant’s presence. A little over a year later, the State signed its first

application to extradite Defendant. This application contained several errors and

was denied. The State filed another application in January of 2013. The

effectiveness of this second application is uncertain, as Defendant was paroled

some months later.

When Defendant appeared in court again on October 1, 2013, the

defense requested another continuance. Counsel for Defendant changed again, and

the defense requested another continuance which reset the trial date. Prior to trial,

on March 10, 2014, the defense filed a Motion to Quash. In this motion, the

defense alleged that the State failed to commence trial within the statutory time

limit and violated Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. After a

hearing, the trial court granted the defense’s motion and dismissed all charges

against Defendant. In its written reasons for judgment, the trial court stated that

2 Defendant’s incarceration interrupted and reset the prescriptive period but that the

State had failed to commence trial within the new time limits. The trial court

further found the prescriptive period had not been suspended by the defense’s

numerous motions to continue because they were caused by the State’s delay in

bringing Defendant to court. Additionally, the court found suspension inapplicable

because it believed the State was unprepared to commence trial. The State now

appeals.

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Because the complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts

demands that deference be given to a trial court’s discretionary decision,” a trial

court’s judgment on a motion to quash will not be reversed unless that finding

represents an abuse of discretion. State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 9 (La. 5/23/03), 847

So.2d 1198, 1206.

IV.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The State contends the trial court abused its discretion in finding no

suspension occurred because of the State’s delay in securing Defendant’s presence

in court. Although we find some of the trial court’s observations to be erroneous,

we do not find the court abused its discretion. Instead, a review of the record

indicates an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether the prescriptive

period has been effectively suspended.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 578 provides that in

noncapital felony cases, the State has two years from the date it institutes

3 prosecution to commence trial. If a defendant shows that the State has failed to

commence trial within this period, the State then bears the “heavy burden of

demonstrating that either an interruption or a suspension of the time limit [has]

tolled prescription.” State v. Morris, 99-3235, p. 1 (La. 2/18/00), 755 So.2d 205.

Suspension of the prescriptive period occurs when a defendant files a preliminary

plea. La.Code Crim.P. art. 580. A preliminary plea is any pleading or motion that

is filed by the defense and has the effect of delaying trial. State v. Brooks, 02-792

(La. 2/14/03), 838 So.2d 778. These pleadings include properly filed motions to

quash, motions to suppress, joint and independent motions for a continuance,

applications for discovery, and applications for bills of particulars. Id. Oral

motions to continue can also suspend the time period for bringing a defendant to

trial. State v. Fanguy, 94-143 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/94), 643 So.2d 860, writ

denied, 94-2726 (La. 4/21/95), 653 So.2d 563; State v. Lathan, 41,855 (La.App. 2

Cir. 2/28/07), 953 So.2d 890, writ denied, 07-805 (La. 3/28/08), 978 So.2d 297;

and State v. Jordan, 00-1508 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/27/01), 802 So.2d 933. See also

State v. Dorignac, 99-938 (La. 9/24/99), 747 So.2d 1110. Once the defense files a

preliminary plea, the prescriptive period is suspended until a ruling on the plea.

La.Code Crim.P. art. 580. After the ruling, the State has no less than one year to

commence trial. Id.

To determine whether a suspension of the prescriptive period

occurred, then, we must review the preliminary pleas filed by the defense from the

date the State instituted its prosecution. On October 29, 2009, a grand jury

returned an indictment for Defendant. Absent any suspension or interruption, the

State had two years, or until October 29, 2011, to timely commence trial. Within

this period, the defense requested a continuance. The defense’s oral motion to

4 continue on October 3, 2011, suspended the prescriptive period. The motion was

immediately ruled on, as were the motions that follow, and gave the State “no . . .

less than one year,” or until October 3, 2012, to commence trial. La.Code Crim.P.

art. 580.

Within this period, the trial court continued the case on its own to

allow the defense time to changeover to newly-appointed counsel. At this hearing,

former counsel for the defense appeared and informed the court that he would be

turning over his entire discovery packet to Defendant’s new counsel the next week.

The court responded by resetting the matter and issuing a new discovery order.

Under similar circumstances, the supreme court has found such court action to

suspend the prescriptive period. In Brooks, 838 So.2d 778, the supreme court

found that the trial court’s own continuance, for the purpose of allowing a

defendant time to substitute counsel, constituted a preliminary plea within the

scope of La.Code Crim.P. art. 580. The court reasoned that the trial court’s

continuance, made solely to accommodate the defense and effectuate the

defendant’s right to counsel, suspended prescription because the State’s ability to

prosecute was affected until the matter of the defendant’s representation was

settled. Id. As in Brooks, the trial court here continued the case to accommodate

the defense. Similarly to Brooks, the State’s ability to prosecute was affected until

Defendant’s new counsel had the opportunity to receive discovery material from

former defense counsel and file any necessary motions. Accordingly, the trial

court’s continuance on June 1, 2012, suspended the time period for commencing

trial. The State had until June 1, 2013 to commence trial.

Within this period, on February 22, 2013, the trial court granted a

motion to continue. Neither Defendant nor defense counsel was present. The

5 transcript reflects that the State both motioned to continue and objected to the

motion, after speaking with the defense who allegedly asked the State to make the

continuance on its behalf. The defense has never testified as to whether it

authorized that request. Addressing a similar situation, in Dorignac, 747 So.2d

1110, the supreme court found a discrepancy as to whether the defense requested a

continuance warranted a remand for an evidentiary hearing. We, too, find that the

circumstances surrounding the February 2013 continuance warrant a remand. An

evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether defense counsel, in fact,

asked the State to make a continuance on its behalf.

If the February 22, 2013 continuance is found to have been authorized

by the defense, it suspended the prescriptive period for an additional year, and the

State had until February 22, 2014 to commence trial. Within this period the trial

court granted a defense motion to continue on October 1, 2013, which gave the

State until October 1, 2014 to commence trial. Then, on March 6, 2014, the

defense filed another motion to continue, which gave the State until March 6, 2015

to commence trial. If an evidentiary hearing reveals the defense authorized the

continuance made on February 22, 2013, then the time to commence trial has yet to

expire. If the hearing reveals the defense did not authorize the continuance,

however, the prescriptive period has expired. Thus, our review of the pertinent

motions and dates reveals the outcome of the evidentiary hearing will determine

whether the time to commence trial has elapsed.

The trial court’s written reasons for judgment indicate it did not

conduct a review of the preliminary pleas filed by the defense and their dates in

reaching its conclusion. Instead, the court based its ruling on a number of

assumptions outside the considerations of a standard suspension analysis. One

6 such assumption was that the State was not prepared to proceed to trial from

February 2011 to October 2013. However, there is no evidence in the record as to

the State’s preparedness for trial during this period. Another assumption was that

all motions to continue made by the defense during Defendant’s incarceration were

attributable to the State. However, the record does not support a finding that the

State’s delay in procuring Defendant’s presence in court was the cause of the

defense’s numerous motions. In filing its October 3, 2011 motion to continue, the

defense stated that it needed more time to investigate the case. The trial court’s

June 1, 2012 continuance was granted to allow Defendant’s new counsel time to

receive and review discovery material from former counsel. In filing its October 1,

2013 motion to continue, the defense stated it needed more time to prepare the

case. The defense’s March 6, 2014 motion to continue stated Defendant needed

more time to prepare its case based on newly-discovered evidence. The reason for

the February 22, 2013 motion to continue is unknown since, as discussed above,

the question of which party essentially made the motion has yet to be settled.

Thus, the defense did not cite State action as the reason for filing any of the above

motions.

While the trial court based its finding that no suspension occurred on

assumptions not supported by the record, its granting of Defendant’s Motion to

Quash was not an abuse of discretion. The State did not definitively show the

prescriptive period to be ongoing. It is for this reason that we conditionally affirm.

However, because the defense potentially authorized a motion which would

effectively suspend the prescriptive period to March 2015, we also remand for an

evidentiary hearing to determine whether that occurred.

7 V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conditionally affirm the grant of

Defendant’s Motion to Quash. We remand the case to the trial court for an

evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the defense authorized the continuance

made by the State on February 22, 2013. If the trial court finds the defense

authorized the continuance, the time to commence trial has yet to expire. As such,

the trial court will deny the Motion to Quash, reinstate the charges against

Defendant, and proceed accordingly. Defendant will have the right to seek review

of the trial court’s ruling. Alternatively, if the trial court finds the defense did not

authorize the continuance, the time to commence trial has expired, and the trial

court will uphold its prior grant of the Motion to Quash. The State will then have

the right to appeal the trial court’s ruling. In the absence of such an appeal by the

State, this court affirms the trial court’s grant of Defendant’s Motion to Quash.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR EVIDENTIARY

HEARING.

8 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

I concur in the majority’s affirmance of the grant of the motion to quash, but

dissent from that portion of the opinion imposing conditions on said affirmance

and remanding the matter for an evidentiary hearing. The trial court’s ruling

should be affirmed without any conditions.

The laws pertaining to extradition required that once the State discovered

Defendant was incarcerated in Texas, it had the affirmative duty to take steps to

secure his presence in Louisiana for trial. State v. Bobo, 03-2362 (La. 4/30/04),

872 So.2d 1052; State v. Amarena, 426 So.2d 613. When the State fails to

properly extradite a defendant incarcerated in another state, as it did here, it loses

the benefit of interruption or suspension in tolling the delays for bringing the

matter to trial. The defense’s requests for continuances because their client was

not made available to them or their inability to complete discovery should not be

used to allow the State to suspend the tolling of prescription. Therefore I would

affirm the trial court’s grant of the motion to quash.