State of Louisiana v. Yolanda Martinez

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: November 6, 2013
• Docket: KA-0013-0437
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-437

VERSUS

YOLANDA MARTINEZ

**********

APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. CR 137618, DIVISION J HONORABLE KRISTIAN D. EARLES, DISTRICT JUDGE

J. DAVID PAINTER JUDGE

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and J. David Painter, Judges.

REVERSED. CONVICTION VACATED.

Chad Ikerd Office of the District Defender Fifteenth Judicial District P.O. Box 3622 600 Jefferson Street, Suite 902 Lafayette, LA 70502 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Yolanda Martinez

J. N. Prather, Jr., Assistant District Attorney Michael Harson, District Attorney Fifteenth Judicial District, District Attorney’s Office P.O. Box 3306 Lafayette, LA 70502 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA PAINTER, Judge.

In State v. Sarrabea, 13-1271 (La. 10/15/13), ___ So.3d ___, the Louisiana

Supreme Court has upheld our decision in the same case (12-1013 (La.App. 3 Cir.

5/1/13), ___ So.3d ___, writ granted, 13-1271 (La. 6/26/13), 118 So.3d 428),

finding that La.R.S. 14:100.13 is unconstitutional. Accordingly, we vacate the

conviction of Defendant, Yolanda Martinez.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 27, 2011, Defendant operated a vehicle without

documentation of her lawful presence in the United States. She was charged with a

violation of La.R.S. 14:100.13, operating a motor vehicle as an alien student and/or

a nonresident alien without documentation demonstrating that she was lawfully

present in the United States. Defendant originally pled not guilty. She filed a

motion to quash, arguing that the statute was not a valid exercise of police powers

and was preempted by federal legislation. The State, represented by the Louisiana

Attorney General’s Office, opposed the motion.

At a hearing on the motion to quash, the trial court indicated that it would

“rule the same way” as it had in previous cases addressing this issue and denied the

motion. Defendant then entered a no-contest plea pursuant to State v. Crosby, 338

So.2d 584 (La.1976), reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to

quash. She was sentenced to serve five days in the parish jail, with credit for time

served, to run concurrently with any other sentence she might be serving. She now

appeals the denial of the motion to quash.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to quash

and in finding that La.R.S. 14:100.13 is a proper exercise of state police powers. She further contends that the trial court erred in holding that the statute is not

preempted by federal law.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:100.13(A) provides:

No alien student or nonresident alien shall operate a motor vehicle in the state without documentation demonstrating that the person is lawfully present in the United States.

The penalty for a violation is a fine of up to one thousand dollars and/or

imprisonment for up to one year, with or without hard labor, making the offense a

felony. La.R.S. 14:100.13(C); La.R.S. 14:2(A)(4).

In Sarrabea, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that La.R.S. 14:100.13

“operates in the field of alien registration and is, therefore, preempted by federal

law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.” Id. at p. 2. This

follows the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States, ___

U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2492 (2012), where the United States Supreme Court noted

that federal law requires aliens to carry proof of registration and concluded that

“the Federal Government has occupied the field of alien registration.” Id. at 2502.

Field preemption forecloses any state regulation, even when it parallels federal

standards, so that “even complementary state regulation is impermissible.” Id.

The United States Supreme Court further noted that “[e]ven if a State may make a

violation of federal law a crime in some instances, it cannot do so in a field (like

the field of alien registration) that has been occupied by federal law.” Id.

Both the Arizona statute and the Louisiana statute forbid the willful failure

to carry documentation demonstrating a lawful presence in the United States and

provide a penalty in excess of the penalty provided by federal law. This

inconsistency “creates a conflict with the plan Congress put in place . . .

underscor[ing] the reason for field preemption.” Id. at 2503.

2 In State v. Sarrabea, 12-1013 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/1/13), ___ So.3d ___, writ

granted, 13-1271 (La. 6/26/13), 118 So.3d 428, the defendant was convicted under

La.R.S. 14:100.13 and sentenced to three months in the parish jail. On appeal, he

argued that the statute was unconstitutional, violated the Equal Protection clause,

and was overly broad and vague. This court agreed, holding that Arizona is

controlling jurisprudence, and stated, “To put it plain and simple, La.R.S.

14:100.13 is preempted by federal law; and the State of Louisiana lacks

Constitutional authority to enforce it.” Id. at 17. The conviction was reversed.

Likewise, this court adopted the Arizona reasoning in State v. Gomez, 12-

1357 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/22/13), 115 So.3d 1200.1 Finding that Louisiana’s statute is

field and conflict preempted, this court held the statute unconstitutional and

reversed the conviction. The second circuit reached the same conclusion in State v.

Anaya-Espino, 48,025 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/22/13), 114 So.3d 1248. The first circuit,

in State v. Lopez, 12-2043 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/21/13), 116 So.3d 1, reached the

opposite conclusion. However, this split in the circuits has been resolved, and the

finding that La.R.S. 14:100.13 is unconstitutional and preempted by federal law

has been upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Sarrabea, ___ So.3d ___.

Thus, we must follow Sarrabea and reverse Defendant’s conviction on the ground

that La.R.S. 14:100.13 is unconstitutional.

DECREE

We reverse the trial court’s ruling denying Defendant’s motion to quash and

vacate her conviction.

1 The State has applied for a writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court in Gomez. Writs have also been granted to address this issue in State v. Marquez, 12-1316 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/7/13) (unpublished writ), writ granted 13-315 (La. 5/3/13), 112 So.3d 851, and State v. Ramirez, 12- 1245 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/7/13) (unpublished writ), writ granted, 13-276 (La. 5/3/13), 112 So.3d 851, in which a different panel of this court denied the defendants’ writ applications and held La.R.S. 14:100.13 constitutional. 3