State v. Laurendine
State v. Laurendine, 439 So. 2d 398 (La. 1983).
Cited by
- State v. Boudreaux 131 So. 3d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
- State v. Hornung 613 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
- State v. Hill 546 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
- State v. Bianchini 513 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
- State v. Mesman 488 So. 2d 1296 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
- State v. Bouche 485 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
- State v. Salata 479 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
- State v. Legnon 464 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
- State v. Sonnier 461 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
- State v. Gardner 458 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
- State v. Vieto 453 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
- State v. Smith 447 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Williams 404 So. 2d 954
- State v. Grimble 397 So. 2d 1254
- State v. McCarroll 337 So. 2d 475
- State v. Comeaux 408 So. 2d 1099
Opinion text
439 So.2d 398 (1983) STATE of Louisiana v. Dale J. LAURENDINE. No. 82-KA-1819. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 17, 1983. William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry J. Morel, Jr., Dist. Atty., Harry Morgan, Abbott J. Reeves, Gregory Champagne, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee. Daniel T. McKearan, Jr., Harahan, for defendant-appellant. DIXON, Chief Justice. [*] Defendant Dale J. Laurendine was charged with violations of R.S. 14:98 (driving while intoxicated), R.S. 14:100 (hit and run driving) and R.S. 32:53A (improper equipment on vehicle). The charges were brought on three separate bills of information. The maximum penalty for a first offender under R.S. 14:98 is a $400 fine and six months in prison. The maximum penalty under R.S. 14:100 is a $500 fine and six months in prison. The maximum penalty for a violation by a first offender of R.S. 32:53 A is set out in R.S. 32:57 and consists of a $100 fine and imprisonment for thirty days. *399 Trial before the judge alone was had on May 18, 1982 on all three charges at once, without mentioning "consolidation," or "jury trial." Defendant was found guilty on the DWI charge and the hit and run driving charge. The improper equipment charge was dismissed for lack of evidence. On the DWI conviction, defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $400 and to serve fifteen days in jail. On the hit and run driving charge, he was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 and serve fifteen days in jail. "... When consolidated, the law considers all charges as if they were originally joined in a single bill. When charges are joined the total possible punishment is the sum of the maximum possible for each...." State v. Williams, 404 So.2d 954, 955 (La.1981). The possible sentence, when each maximum sentence in this case is totaled, is more than six months imprisonment; therefore, defendant was entitled to a jury trial. La. Const., art. 1, § 17; State v. Williams, supra; State v. Grimble, 397 So.2d 1254 (La.1980); State v. McCarroll, 337 So.2d 475 (La.1976). One who is entitled to a jury trial may waive that right; however, jury trial waiver is not presumed. McCarroll, supra at 480 . As in State v. Williams, supra, nothing in this record indicates that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to trial by jury, nor even that he was given the opportunity. In fact, this case is indistinguishable from State v. Williams . [1] Defendant's third assignment of error, therefore, has merit. We need not consider the other assignments regarding sufficiency of the evidence. For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences are reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial. LEMMON, J., dissents for the reasons assigned in State v. Williams, 404 So.2d 954 (La.1981). BLANCHE, J., dissents. NOTES [*] Bailes, J., sitting for Justice Marcus. [1] State v. Comeaux, 408 So.2d 1099 (La.1981), is distinguishable. There, defendant was charged in separate affidavits. Defendant never moved for consolidation, but objected when the state commenced the trial, on one charge alone, on the ground that he was being deprived of his right to a jury trial. The argument was rejected, the court finding that defendant was tried in two separate cases.