State of Louisiana v. William Jones

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-395

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

WILLIAM JONES

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 6423-12
HONORABLE RONALD F. WARE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of James T. Genovese, Shannon J. Gremillion and John E.
Conery, Judges.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

John F. DeRosier
District Attorney — Fourteenth Judicial District
Christy Rhoades
Karen C. McLellan
Carla S. Sigler
Assistant District Attorneys
901 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 800
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
State of Louisiana

Edward K. Bauman
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 1641
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602-1641
(337) 491-0570
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
William Jones

GENOVESE, Judge.

In this domestic abuse battery case, the State appeals the trial court‟s grant

of Defendant‟s Motion to Quash on the basis of double jeopardy. For the

following reasons, we reverse and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 14, 2012, at 8:43 p.m., Defendant, William Jones, was arrested

and jailed for domestic abuse battery by strangulation stemming from an

altercation between him and his girlfriend in Sulphur, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.

On January 16, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., some fifty-four hours later, the arrest warrant

and bond was signed by District Court Judge David Ritchie.

The arrest warrant and bond provided as follows:

WARRANT

STATE OF LOUISIANA SPD COMPLAINT # C411200148
PARISH OF CALCASIEU TO THE SHERIFF
OR ANY OTHER PEACE OFFICER

WHEREAS, complaint has been made by sworn affidavit of:
PO G. MARTIN THAT

WILLIAM JONES 192 N. CITIES SERVICE HWY #14 SULPHUR,
LA, B/M DOB: 05/12/1971, SSN: OLN: LA 10639749 on or about
JANUARY 14, 2012 in the Parish and State aforementioned did
unlawfully:

COMMIT LA RS 14:35.3B3 - DOMESTIC ABUSE BATTERY BY
STRANGULATION – 10,000

Bond will be effective 48 hours after booking.
Conditions of Bond:[1]
(1) No contact with victim. (2) No other criminal activity.

Now THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded in the name of the
State of Louisiana to apprehend, arrest and bring the said accused to
before the Court of competent jurisdiction to be dealt with according
to law and let this be your warrant of arrest.

1
The “Conditions of Bond” were hand written by Judge Ritchie.

LET THE ACCUSED BE ADMITTED TO BAIL IN THE
SUM OF $ 10,000 with good and solvent security to be approved by
the Sheriff of said Parish.

YOU ARE COMMANDED TO NOTIFY THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY IN WRITING UPON ARREST.

Given under my official signature this 16th day of January , 2012,
at 2:30 p.m.

DAVID A. RITCHIE ___________________
JUDGE‟S PRINTED NAME JUDGE‟S SIGNATURE

The State filed a bill of information charging Defendant with domestic abuse

by strangulation. Thereafter, Defendant filed a Motion to Quash, alleging:

2.

Defendant, hereby files this Motion to Quash, pursuant to
La.C.Cr.P.[]532(6) seeking an order of this Honorable Court
dismissing the Bill of Information pending against the Defendant,
with prejudice.
3

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
reads in pertinent part, “nor shall any person be subject for the same
offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”.

4.

The Defendant‟s Motion to Quash must be granted and the
charges against him dismissed because he is facing double
punishment for the same act, after being forced to serve two (2) days
in jail without the possibility of bond by order of a sitting judge of the
14th Judicial District Court. (See Exhibit “A”).

5.

Any potential conviction and implication of sentence against
defendant would be a second penalty for the alleged offense and thus
unconstitutional and therefore the Court must grant the Defendant‟s
motion.

A hearing on the Motion to Quash was held before District Court Judge

Ronald F. Ware on October 12, 2012. Defendant‟s attorney argued that the

“written designation” by Judge Ritchie on the bond, stating that the bond would be

2

effective forty-eight hours after booking, was punishment by the government, and

any other punishment by the government would constitute double jeopardy.

The State argued that, at the time Judge Richie set the condition of bond that

bond would be effective forty-eight hours after booking, the forty-eight hours from

booking had almost elapsed. Defendant did not spend any more time in jail than

was allowable under La.Code Crim.P. art. 230.2(A);2 he did not suffer any harm or

prejudice; and, no jeopardy had attached to this pretrial proceeding. The State

further asserted that even if there was a statutory or constitutional violation, the

remedy imposed, i.e., quashing of the bill of information, was legally

impermissible. We note that Defendant‟s remedy for a violation of La.Code

Crim.P. art. 230.2(A) would simply be a release on recognizance3 and not a

quashal of the bill of information.

The trial court granted the motion stating in pertinent part:

Well, this is what‟s troubling me; well, a couple of things. Bond
was set within 48 hours. Nobody denies that. And the condition of
bail was that he not be allowed to be booked out 48 hours, and the 48
hours had expired.

Another thing is, I guess[,] it goes to the core of your argument,
Mr. Dorsey -- is has he been [sic] -- is this a punishment, pretrial or
based on a set of facts or a particular incident? I don‟t know. Seems
like it is to me. But for the 48 hours having been expired at the time
he impose [sic] it, I guess, you know, we get back to the moot point. I
mean --

Mr. Dorsey, what do you think about that? The 48 hours had
passed. When this warrant was signed and bail fixed, he was eligible
for release upon posting bail. Do you agree with that?

....

2
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 230.2(A) provides, in pertinent part, that if a
person is arrested without a warrant, the person cannot be held more than forty-eight hours from
booking without a probable cause determination being made by a magistrate or judge.
3
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 230.2(B) provides: “If a probable cause
determination is not timely made . . ., the arrested person shall be released on his own
recognizance.”
3

And I was troubled by the fact that could Mr. Jones, could he
have bonded out at the time that Judge Ritchie signed this paperwork?
The answer is no.

....

2:30 p.m[.]? 6 hours and 13 minutes that he had to wait after
this was signed before he‟d be eligible for bail -- well, not eligible for
bail. He was set bail, but would be permitted or admitted to bail.
That‟s another 6 hours. And jail is not time out. Jail is jail.

....

He was denied bail without a hearing based on a particular set
of circumstances, an incident that caused him to be arrested. It‟s not
something – it‟s not anything else. It was the event that caused him to
be arrested. And it was the event that was the basis, that same event,
that was the basis for his detention past the 48 hours; not past the 48
hours but caused him to spend an additional six hours in jail. Had
jeopardy attached, Mr. Dorsey?

....

No, but there is my concern that the State seeks to punish him
twice. That was penal, in nature, to hold him for an additional six
hours past the time that he should have been; and by law, bailable at
2:30 Monday. . . .

....

8:43. [p.m.] At the time this was signed at 2[:]30 [p.m.], he
should have been bailable immediately. But[,] he was not. I‟m going
to quash the information.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for

errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find no

errors patent.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In its sole assignment of error, the State contends that the trial court erred in

granting Defendant‟s Motion to Quash on the basis of double jeopardy. We agree.

4

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The State contends that it was permissible for the trial court to impose as a bail

restriction a forty-eight hour “cooling[-]off” period, citing La.Code Crim.P. art.

335.1, and points out that this “cooling[-]off” period did not exceed the forty-eight

hour period from the time of arrest, the statutory period in which a bond must be

set under La.Code Crim.P. art. 230.2; therefore, Defendant did not suffer any

injury or prejudice. The State further argues that even if the time to allow

Defendant to bond out was unlawful, the remedy would not be a quashal of the

charge. The proper remedy would have been for Defendant to file a supervisory

writ contesting the bail restriction and/or denial, citing La.Code Crim.P. art. 343.

Finally, the State asserts that Defendant being detained in jail “6 hours and

13 minutes” after his arrest warrant was signed before he could bond out did not

constitute punishment; thus, there was no double jeopardy violation. The State

contends, in pertinent part:

Instead of relying on the traditional double jeopardy element
analysis, the defendant‟s argument is that his pretrial detention for a
period when bail was not available to him was punitive, such that
punishment after a conviction would constitute double jeopardy.
Under the defendant‟s theory, any pretrial period of incarceration for
an offense would bar subsequent prosecution, conviction, and
imprisonment for the underlying crime. Such a result is absurd. It
also flies in the face of two fundamental principles of double jeopardy
illustrated supra: (1) for jeopardy to be implicated, the proceeding at
issue must occur in a court; and (2) jeopardy attaches at a trial. Thus,
in this case involving an out-of-court pretrial determination of
probable cause to hold the defendant and a bail issue, there is no valid
jeopardy claim which can be made.

The purpose of bail, and any conditions placed on it, is to
ensure the defendant‟s appearance at trial, and in some cases to
protect the public or victim from the threat the defendant poses to
them. LSA-C.Cr.P. Arts. 311, 334, & 335. Bail is not punitive in
nature. Incarceration imposed after a criminal conviction is punitive,
with its goals as retribution and deterrence. State v. Trosclair, 2011-
2302 (La. 5/8/12), 89 So.3d 340, 351 (internal citation omitted).

5

Defendant counters that the “cooling-off” period ordered as part of bail is

not authorized as a condition of bail and that it does not fall under La.Code Crim.P.

art. 335, which allows a trial court to impose “any additional condition of release

that is reasonably related to assuring the appearance of the defendant before the

court.” Defendant contends that the “cooling-off” period was not reasonably

related to assuring the defendant‟s appearance at a subsequent court proceeding.

Defendant further claims that this is not a case of denial of bail, but an

imposition of an unauthorized bail restriction that violated Defendant‟s

constitutional right, that it exposed him to double jeopardy, and that the

“cooling-off” period constituted punishment. Defendant asserts, in pertinent part:

The State argues bail is not punitive in nature; therefore, the
imposition of a mandatory forty-eight hours before bail could be
posted was not punitive[ ] either. It is not disputed that bail is not
punitive in nature. The condition imposed in this case, however, was
punitive. Any jail sentence, of whatever length, imposed by a court,
constitutes a punishment. In North Carolina v. Thompson, 349 N.C.
483, 508 S.E.2d 277 (N.C. 1998), the North Carolina Supreme Court,
in discussing the forty-eight hour pre-trial detention of a defendant
accused of domestic violence, pointed out the statute permitting
detention of up to forty-eight hours prior to appearance before a
magistrate or judge

[did] not require pretrial detention or prescribe any
minimum period of detention. Individuals charged with
domestic violence might not be detained at all under the
statute; they might be brought before a judge for a
pretrial release hearing immediately following arrest. In
such instances, no double-jeopardy concern arises
because the arrestee, who has not been punished or
detained under [the statute] suffers no “multiple
punishment” upon subsequent criminal prosecution.

Thompson, 50[8] S.E.2d at 285. (Emphasis in original). The
implication of the North Carolina Supreme Court, in that case, was
that, if the statute had required a minimum period of pretrial
detention, an arrestee would have been punished pretrial, and would
suffer “multiple punishment” if subsequently prosecuted.

In this case, William Jones was required to serve at least
forty-eight hours before he could become “bailable.” Thus, that

6

forty-eight hours constituted punishment; and, as such, exposure to
subsequent prosecution constituted double jeopardy.

In State v. Archield, 09-1116, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/7/10), 34 So.3d 434,

438, writ denied, 10-1146 (La. 5/20/11), 63 So.3d 972, this court explained that

“[b]oth the United States and Louisiana Constitutions prohibit double jeopardy; the

imposition of multiple punishments for a single criminal act. See U.S. Const.

amend. V; La. Const. art. 1, § 15. See also, La.Code Crim.P. art. 591.”

We have been unable to find any Louisiana cases addressing this particular

issue. Consequently, we look to federal law and other states‟ jurisprudence for

guidance.

In Thompson, 508 S.E.2d 277, which is cited by Defendant in support of his

position, the defendant was arrested for misdemeanor assault of his former

domestic partner. He was brought before a magistrate. Because it involved

domestic violence, the magistrate ordered that the defendant, following his arrest,

be detained in jail for forty-eight hours before he was brought before a judge or

magistrate to set his bond, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-534.1. The applicable

version of N.C.G.S. § 15A-534.1 provided as follows:

(a) In all cases in which the defendant is charged with assault on or
communicating a threat to a spouse or former spouse or a person with
whom the defendant lives or has lived as if married, with domestic
criminal trespass, or with violation of an order entered pursuant to
Chapter 50B, Domestic Violence, of the General Statutes, the judicial
official who determines the conditions of pretrial release shall be a
judge, and the following provisions shall apply in addition to the
provisions of G.S. 15A-534:

(1) Upon a determination by the judge that the immediate
release of the defendant will pose a danger of injury to the
alleged victim or to any other person or is likely to result in
intimidation of the alleged victim and upon a determination that
the execution of an appearance bond as required by G.S. 15A-
534 will not reasonably assure that such injury or intimidation
will not occur, a judge may retain the defendant in custody for a
reasonable period of time while determining the conditions of
pretrial release.

7

(2) A judge may impose the following conditions on pretrial
release:

a. That the defendant stay away from the home, school,
business or place of employment of the alleged victim;

b. That the defendant refrain from assaulting, beating,
molesting, or wounding the alleged victim;

c. That the defendant refrain from removing, damaging or
injuring specifically identified property;

d. That the defendant may visit his or her child or children at
times and places provided by the terms of any existing order
entered by a judge.

The conditions set forth above may be imposed in addition to
requiring that the defendant execute a secured appearance bond.

(3) Should the defendant be mentally ill and dangerous to
himself or others or a substance abuser and dangerous to
himself or others, the provisions of Article 5 of Chapter 122C
of the General Statutes shall apply.

(b) A defendant may be retained in custody not more than 48 hours
from the time of arrest without a determination being made under
this section by a judge. If a judge has not acted pursuant to this
section within 48 hours of arrest, the magistrate shall act under the
provisions of this section.

In Thompson, the court noted that the “defendant spent almost forty-eight

hours, including two nights, in jail without bond on three misdemeanor charges.”

Id. at 280. The defendant challenged the North Carolina law as unconstitutional on

its face and as applied to him on the basis of due process and double jeopardy

violations. As to the argument that the statute violated double jeopardy on its face,

the court held in pertinent part:

In his final facial challenge to N.C.G.S. § 15A-534.1(b),
defendant contends that the statute violates the Double Jeopardy
Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it permits individuals to be
punished twice for the same offense. The Double Jeopardy Clause
states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The clause
protects against three distinct abuses: a second prosecution for the
same offense after acquittal, a second prosecution for the same

8

offense after conviction, and multiple punishments for the same
offense. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072,
2076, 23 L.Ed.2d 656, 664-65 (1969), overruled on other grounds by
Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 109 S.Ct. 2201, 104 L.Ed.2d 865
(1989). Defendant asserts that he has been subjected to the third of
these abuses here. He contends that when an individual is arrested on
a charge of domestic violence and detained without a hearing under
N.C.G.S. § 15A-534.1(b), he has been “punished” for purposes of
double-jeopardy analysis. Thus, a subsequent criminal prosecution
based upon the same conduct amounts to a “multiple punishment” for
the same offense.

Contrary to defendant‟s position, there are a number of
circumstances under which the detention N.C.G.S. § 15A-534.1(b)
authorizes does not raise double-jeopardy concerns. As discussed
above, “the mere fact that a person is detained does not
inexorably lead to the conclusion that the government has
imposed punishment.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 746, 107 S.Ct. at 2101,
95 L.Ed.2d at 708. When N.C.G.S. § 15A-534.1 is administered as
intended, detentions thereunder are regulatory. See id. Thus, when an
individual arrested upon an allegation of domestic violence undergoes
regulatory detention under N.C.G.S. § 15A-534.1(b) for a brief period
of time while awaiting the first available judge to hold a pretrial
release hearing under N.C.G.S. § 15A-534.1(a), no double-jeopardy
concern arises. Subsequent criminal prosecution of an arrestee who
has been regulated, but not punished, does not expose the arrestee to
“multiple punishments” for the same offense under established
double-jeopardy principles.

Further, N.C.G.S. § 15A-534.1(b) does not require pretrial
detention or prescribe any minimum period of detention. Individuals
charged with domestic violence might not be detained at all under the
statute; they might be brought before a judge for a pretrial-release
hearing immediately following arrest. In such instances, no double-
jeopardy concern arises because the arrestee, who has not been
punished or detained under N.C.G.S. § 15A-534.1(b), suffers no
“multiple punishment” upon subsequent criminal prosecution.

We conclude that defendant has not satisfied his burden of
“establish[ing] that no set of circumstances exists under which the
[a]ct would be valid.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745, 107 S.Ct. at 2100, 95
L.Ed.2d at 707. N.C.G.S. § 15A-534.1(b) thus survives defendant‟s
facial constitutional challenge on double-jeopardy grounds.

Id. at 284-85 (emphasis added). The court did not address whether the defendant

suffered a double jeopardy violation because it found that the defendant was

denied due process.

9

However, following Thompson, the appellate court in North Carolina

addressed a double jeopardy violation as applied to a defendant in a similar factual

scenario as the present case. In State v. Gilbert, 139 N.C.App. 657, 535 S.E.2d 94

(2000), the defendant was arrested for the second degree kidnapping of his

ex-girlfriend. When the defendant was arrested, the magistrate who initially

processed the defendant mistakenly thought it was related to domestic violence and

noted that the defendant was being held pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15:A-534.1.

Defendant appeared before the judge the next morning to have his bond set. The

judge set the bond and ordered that the defendant not be released until 2:00 p.m.

that afternoon. The opinion indicates that the panel on the court was under the

impression the judge also thought N.C.G.S. § 15:A-534.1 applied. On appeal of

his conviction, the defendant argued that he was illegally held without bond after

his arrest, and he was denied his constitutional right to due process and his

protection against double jeopardy. Quoting Thompson, the court found that

N.C.G.S. “section 15:A-534.1 „survives defendant‟s facial constitutional challenge

on double-jeopardy grounds.‟ Thompson, 349 N.C. at 496, 508 S.E.2d at 285.”

Gilbert, 535 S.E.2d at 99. Additionally, the court addressed the double jeopardy

claim as applied to the defendant, stating in pertinent part:

[B]ecause the detention was only to await hearing before the “first
available judge,” defendant was not exposed to double jeopardy for
the kidnapping charge. Similarly, we hold that the judge‟s order
requiring defendant to remain in custody until 2:00 p.m. as a condition
of defendant‟s release pursuant to section 15A-534.1(a) does not give
rise to double jeopardy.

Id. at 101.

In U.S. v. Warneke, 199 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 1999), the defendants were

indicted on racketeering charges. They were ordered into detention when arrested

soon after the indictment was returned. No trial was held. The indictment was

10

dismissed seventeen months later. Because the bill was dismissed on technical

grounds that were easily curable, the judge ordered the defendants to remain in

custody for a short time, not to exceed thirty days, pending return of a new

indictment. When the new indictment was returned, the defendants had been in

custody for seventeen months. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment,

claiming that their constitutional rights against double jeopardy were violated.

They argued that the time spent in custody before the return of the second

indictment was punishment; therefore, the double jeopardy clause prevented the

government from punishing them again. The defendants contended that the double

jeopardy clause‟s prohibition against multiple punishment applied even if a

defendant has not been prosecuted.

The court held, in pertinent part:
In [Department of Revenue of Montana v.] Kurth Range[, 511
U.S. 767, 114 S.Ct. 1937 (1994)], the defendants were convicted and
sentenced after pleading guilty to drug charges. Later, the State of
Montana sought to impose a drug tax on the defendants based on the
same criminal conduct. The Supreme Court held that Montana‟s drug
tax was “the functional equivalent of a successive criminal
prosecution,” 511 U.S. at 784, 114 S.Ct. 1937, and so the Court
concluded that the double jeopardy clause precluded the imposition of
the tax penalty after the underlying drug prosecutions were wrapped
up.
The analytical approach employed in Kurth Ranch, which
actually came from United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct.
1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), was jettisoned in Hudson v. United
States, 522 U.S. 93, 118 S.Ct. 488, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997), but that‟s
the least of the defendants‟ problems. The bigger problem is that
Kurth Ranch did nothing to alter the “fundamental principle that an
accused must suffer jeopardy before he can suffer double jeopardy.”
Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 393, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 43 L.Ed.2d
265 (1975). In Kurth Ranch the Supreme Court held that the
imposition of a drug tax against a convicted defendant constituted a
second punishment, but the Court never suggested that the tax would
be prohibited absent the prior “attachment” of jeopardy. Similarly, if
the tax had been levied prior to the drug prosecution, the Supreme
Court would then have had to determine whether the taxing procedure
resulted in the attachment of jeopardy.

11

Pretrial detention does not trigger the attachment of “jeopardy”
so as to invoke the protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause. See
United States v. Grisanti, 4 F.3d 173 (2d Cir.1993). And, the statute
authorizing pretrial detention, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, is remedial, not
punitive. In United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 107 S.Ct. 2095,
95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987), the Supreme Court held that detention
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) did not, on its face, even violate the
Due Process Clause because it was not punishment. The focus of a
pretrial detention hearing is to determine whether there are conditions
of release that can reasonably assure the appearance of a defendant at
trial and, at the same time, preserve the safety of the community. See
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The factors considered by the court in making
these determinations center on risk of flight and danger, and not on
the determination of guilt and punishment. “The legislative history of
the Bail Reform Act clearly indicates that Congress did not formulate
the pretrial detention provisions as punishment for dangerous
individuals [but instead] perceived pretrial detention as a potential
solution to a pressing societal problem.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 747,
107 S.Ct. 2095.

....

The government agrees that pretrial detention may not be
punitive. If an excessively long period of pretrial confinement
exceeds due process limits, the defendants‟ remedy is not a motion to
dismiss, particularly not a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy
grounds. It is to seek review of the detention order. The Bail Reform
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq., allows a defendant to request
reconsideration of his detention at any time. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(f) and
3145(b). This decision is in turn subject to review on appeal. 18
U.S.C. § 3145(c). See United States v. Infelise, 934 F.2d 103 (7th
Cir.1991).

Id. at 907-08.4

After reviewing Thompson and Gilbert, we find that Thompson does not

support Defendant‟s double jeopardy violation. Moreover, Gilbert is very similar

to the facts in the present case in that the defendant was held in jail after his bond

was set and the court found no double jeopardy violation. Additionally, as in

Warneke, we find that pretrial detention does not trigger the attachment of jeopardy

to invoke the protection of the double jeopardy clause. Furthermore, we find that

the trial court‟s action of holding Defendant six hours and thirteen minutes after
4
In United States v. Simpson, 3:09-CR-249-D(06), 2011 WL 2880885 (N.D. Tx. 7/15/11)
(unpublished), the court cited Warneke to support its finding that jeopardy did not attach to
pre-trial detention. The court also cites several federal cases to support its holding.
12

bond was set, but within the forty-eight hour period set forth in La.Code Crim.P.

art. 230.2, was not punishment, and we note that Defendant has offered no

authority to support his assertion that it was punishment.

Defendant also argues in brief that the forty-eight hour “cooling-off” period

violates La.Code Crim.P. art. 335 in that it is not “reasonably related to assuring

the appearance of the defendant before the court.” Even assuming, arguendo, that

the “cooling-off” period violates a defendant‟s right to bail, the legal remedy for

such a violation is set forth in La.Code Crim.P. art. 343, which states: “A person

held may invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the court of appeal on a claim that

the trial court has improperly refused bail or a reduction of bail in a bailable case.”

In the instant case, Defendant‟s legal remedy was to apply for supervisory writs

with the appellate court, not a dismissal of the charges by the trial court pursuant to

its grant of Defendant‟s Motion to Quash. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment

of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.

DISPOSITION

The judgment of the trial court granting Defendant‟s Motion to Quash is

reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in

accordance with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

13