State v. Goodwin

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Goodwin

465 So. 2d 279, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 9648

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 7, 1985

DocketNo. 17150-KW

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 465 So. 2d 279 (State v. Goodwin) 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 v. Goodwin, 465 So. 2d 279, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 9648 (La. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

[280]*280ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT

Writ granted and made peremptory.

The action of the trial court in revoking defendant’s probation is reversed, the defendant is ordered released from custody, and the defendant’s probation is ordered deemed to have expired.

This defendant received a one year suspended probated sentence subsequent to a DWI conviction. He gave the probation office an address in Carthage, Texas. The sentence was imposed December 7, 1983, and the defendant apparently reported to the probation office on that day or shortly thereafter. He never made another contact with the probation office, although the record shows he consistently maintained his residence at the Carthage, Texas address which he gave the probation office. On September 17, 1984, a warrant was issued for the defendant’s arrest. This information was forwarded to the probation office’s Baton Rouge headquarters and the information was placed in the National Crime Information Computer making that information available to all law enforcement agencies. The record does not show any other action by the state to execute the arrest warrant. The defendant was not arrested on the probation warrant until January 22, 1985 subsequent to a traffic stop in DeSoto Parish.

The law is firmly established that where the defendant is arrested subsequent to the expiration of the period of probation on a warrant charging violation of that probation, that the state bears the affirmative duty of establishing that the warrant could not be executed. LSA-C. Cr.P. Art. 899; State ex rel. DeGreat v. Phelps, 377 So.2d 341 (La.1979); State v. Harris, 342 So.2d 179 (La.1977); State v. Martens, 338 So.2d 95 (La.1976); State v. Jones, 285 So.2d 231 (La.1973). Moreover, it has been held that simply the placing of this information in the N.C.I.C. without further action, particularly where the defendant’s possible whereabouts are known, is not sufficient. Harris, supra.

Thus, the state has not established that the arrest warrant could not be executed. Therefore, defendant’s probation has expired. The writ is granted and made peremptory.

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

[280]*280ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT

Writ granted and made peremptory.

The action of the trial court in revoking defendant’s probation is reversed, the defendant is ordered released from custody, and the defendant’s probation is ordered deemed to have expired.

This defendant received a one year suspended probated sentence subsequent to a DWI conviction. He gave the probation office an address in Carthage, Texas. The sentence was imposed December 7, 1983, and the defendant apparently reported to the probation office on that day or shortly thereafter. He never made another contact with the probation office, although the record shows he consistently maintained his residence at the Carthage, Texas address which he gave the probation office. On September 17, 1984, a warrant was issued for the defendant’s arrest. This information was forwarded to the probation office’s Baton Rouge headquarters and the information was placed in the National Crime Information Computer making that information available to all law enforcement agencies. The record does not show any other action by the state to execute the arrest warrant. The defendant was not arrested on the probation warrant until January 22, 1985 subsequent to a traffic stop in DeSoto Parish.

The law is firmly established that where the defendant is arrested subsequent to the expiration of the period of probation on a warrant charging violation of that probation, that the state bears the affirmative duty of establishing that the warrant could not be executed. LSA-C. Cr.P. Art. 899; State ex rel. DeGreat v. Phelps, 377 So.2d 341 (La.1979); State v. Harris, 342 So.2d 179 (La.1977); State v. Martens, 338 So.2d 95 (La.1976); State v. Jones, 285 So.2d 231 (La.1973). Moreover, it has been held that simply the placing of this information in the N.C.I.C. without further action, particularly where the defendant’s possible whereabouts are known, is not sufficient. Harris, supra.

Thus, the state has not established that the arrest warrant could not be executed. Therefore, defendant’s probation has expired. The writ is granted and made peremptory.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

465 So. 2d 279, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 9648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-goodwin-lactapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack