Glenn H. Lawrence, Jr. Versus State of Louisiana

GLENN H. LAWRENCE, JR. NO. 22-KH-568

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

January 04, 2023

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

Panel composed of Susan M. Chehardy,
Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Robert A. Chaisson

REHEARING DENIED WITH REASONS

SMC
FHW
RAC

CHEHARDY, C.J.

Relator, Glenn H. Lawrence, Jr., seeks reconsideration of this Court’s

December 9, 2022 denial of his writ application number 22-KH-568.

Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule (URCA) 2-18.7 provides as follows:

2-18.7. When Rehearing Will Be Considered
An application for rehearing will be considered in cases where
the court has:
(A) Granted a writ application on the merits;
(B) Dismissed an appeal; or
(C) Ruled on the merits of an appeal.
URCA Rule 4-9 provides that “Rules 2-18.1 through 2-18.7 apply to

requests for rehearings related to writ applications.”

Because relator’s writ application was denied, he is not entitled to a

rehearing. Accordingly, relator’s application for rehearing is denied.

In the interest of justice, we have reviewed the merits of relator’s filing, and

despite the procedural deficiencies in his original filing, and the fact that the

“supplementation” was untimely, we find no merit to relator’s claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. Specifically, relator claimed that his counsel was ineffective

for failing to object to the State proceeding on a charge against him—possession

with intent to distribute MDMA (Ectasy)—well beyond the prescriptive period,

and for failure to file a motion to quash. Relator argues that he was incarcerated on

a parole violation, and was released on July 11, 2009, at which time he presumed

the charges against him had been dismissed, as he had been incarcerated and was

released without notice of status or disposition of the case, or any pending

warrants, detainer, or court date.

In response, the State maintained that, pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art.

578, the period of limitation was interrupted when relator failed to appear in court

for trial on August 3, 2019, at which time the court issued an attachment for

relator, as evidenced in the district court record.

22-KH-568 1

La. C.Cr.P. art. 578 provides, in pertinent part:
A. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, no trial
shall be commenced nor any bail obligation be
enforceable:
***
(3) In misdemeanor cases after one year from the date of
institution of the prosecution.
Additionally, La. C.Cr.P. art. 579 provides, in pertinent part:
A. The period of limitation established by Article 578 shall
be interrupted if:
(1) The defendant at any time, with the purpose to avoid
detection, apprehension, or prosecution, flees from the
state, is outside the state, or is absent from his usual
place of abode within the state; or
***
(3) The defendant fails to appear at any proceeding
pursuant to actual notice, proof of which appears of
record.
***
B. The periods of limitation established by Article 578 shall
commence to run anew from the date the cause of
interruption no longer exits.

C. If the defendant fails to appear in court pursuant to any
provision of this Article and the defendant is
subsequently arrested, the periods of limitations
established by Article 578 of this Code shall not
commence to run anew until the defendants appears in
person in open court where the case on the original
charge is pending …
The record shows that on July 6, 2009, relator received actual notice from

the trial judge in open court of the date to respond to the subject charges and he

failed to appear, leading to his eventual arrest from an outstanding attachment.

When a defendant voluntarily absents himself from an ongoing proceeding of

which he received actual notice, prescription on that charge is interrupted and does

not continue to run to the detriment of the State. Thus, as the district court noted,

had relator’s counsel filed a motion to quash on the basis that the charge against

relator had prescribed, the motion would have been denied. Accordingly, relator’s

ineffective assistance of counsel claim lacks merit.

Relator’s request for rehearing is hereby denied.

22-KH-568 2

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
INTERIM CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON LINDA M. WISEMAN
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. 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 01/04/2023 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:

22-KH-568
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Donald A. Rowan, Jr. (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Respondent)

MAILED
Glenn H. Lawrence, Jr. #364876 (Relator)
Dixon Correctional Institute
Ivy Miller, Classification Department
P. O Box 788
Jackson, LA 70748