State v. Joseph
Also decided on this docket: La., March 18, 1994 634 So. 2d 843
State v. Joseph, 637 So. 2d 1032 (La. 1994).
Cited by
- State of Louisiana v. Calvin Javontae Dshawn Powell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
- State of Louisiana v. Gerard Ladmirault La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
- State v. Andrews (In re Andrews) 255 So. 3d 1106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- State v. West 154 So. 3d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
- State v. Jones 144 So. 3d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
- State v. Kelly 133 So. 3d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
- State of Louisiana v. Deke Edmond Duraso La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
- State of Louisiana v. Deke Edmond Duraso La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
- State v. Duraso 127 So. 3d 1015 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
- State v. Harris 83 So. 3d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
- State v. Wilson 68 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
- State v. Jacobs 67 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Rome 630 So. 2d 1284
- State v. Nations 420 So. 2d 967
- State v. Driever 347 So. 2d 1132
- State v. Devito 391 So. 2d 813
Opinion text
637 So.2d 1032 (1994) STATE of Louisiana v. Wilfred JOSEPH. No. 93-KK-2734. Supreme Court of Louisiana. June 3, 1994. Gregory A. Miller, Norco, for applicant. Richard P. Ieyoub, Atty. Gen., New Orleans, Harry J. Morel, Jr., Dist. Atty., Hahnville, Emile R. St. Pierre, Destrehan, for respondent. PER CURIAM: The defendant was charged by grand jury indictment returned on April 11, 1991, with distribution of cocaine in violation of La.R.S. 40:967. On June 15, 1993, with trial set for the following week after numerous delays, the defendant filed a motion to quash on grounds that the two-year time limit for the prosecution set by La.Cr.P. art. 578(2), had expired. The trial court conducted a hearing on June 21, 1993, and denied the motion on grounds that a heavy trial docket, which on two occasions had "bumped" the defendant's case for trial of another case set on the same day, constituted a "cause beyond control of the state" for purposes of interrupting prescription under La.C.Cr.P. art. 579A(2). The defendant sought review in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, which denied relief for the same reasons given by the trial court, and upon finding that the defendant's case "ha[d] not been prejudiced by the delay." The courts below erred. The state has a heavy burden of justifying an apparently untimely commencement of trial on grounds that the time limits in Art. 578 were either interrupted or suspended. State v. Rome, 630 So.2d 1284 (La.1994); State v. Nations, 420 So.2d 967 (La.1982). Unparticularized allegations of a crowded docket do not satisfy that burden. Administrative problems within the court system generally do not constitute causes of interruption beyond control of the state because "[t]he court system cannot excuse itself from affording *1033 an accused a trial within the delay required by law, simply by relying upon internal operating procedures which result in noncompliance with the statutory mandate." State v. Driever, 347 So.2d 1132, 1134 (La. 1977). The trial court therefore erred in denying the motion to quash. We have never required a showing of specific prejudice once the defendant has demonstrated that the prosecution has exceeded the limits imposed by Art. 578, and the state has failed to carry its burden of justifying the delay. State v. Rome, supra ; State v. DeVito, 391 So.2d 813 (La.1980) (on rehearing); State v. Driever, supra . Accordingly, we vacate the judgment below and order the proceedings against the defendant quashed. JUDGMENT REVERSED; MOTION TO QUASH GRANTED. HALL, J., not on panel. SHORTESS, Judge, First Circuit Court of Appeal, sitting in place of DENNIS, J.