Summary
In Gauthe the Court also noted that no ambiguity exists in the plea colloquy and no extrinsic evidence was required for its interpretation, concluded that the state had not made a showing to justify disturbing the finality of the convictions, and ordered the district court to dismiss the state's motion for revocation or reformation of the guilty plea. Here the state did not use such a motion, but instead filed a multiple bill to prevent Lewis from being released before serving twenty years.
Summary of this case from State v. LewisOpinion
No. 98-KP-1995
December 18, 1998
IN RE: Gauthe, Gilbert; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number KW98-0451; Parish of Lafayette 15th Judicial District Court Div. "C" Number 51998, 51999
Writ granted. Because the plea colloquy in this case shows no ambiguity and so requires no extrinsic evidence for its interpretation, La.C.C art. 1848; cf. State v. Louis, 94-0761 p. 7-8 (La. 11/30/94), 645 So.2d 1144, 1148, and because no provision of law requires either the court or defendant to inform the state of the existence and nature of statutes on early release, cf. State ex rel. Miller v. Butler, 564 So.2d 310 (La. 1990), clarified, 566 So.2d 383 (La. 1990); La.C.Cr.P. art. 5; R.S. 14:17, the state makes no showing which would justify disturbing the finality of the convictions. See, e.g., State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330, p. 12 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189, 1196-97 (criminal proceedings should definitively "end within a reasonable period of time."); cf. United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 136, 101 S.Ct. 426, 437, 66 L.Ed. 328 (1980) (convicts as well as governments have expectation of finality). Accordingly, the district court is ordered to dismiss the state's motion for revocation or reformation of plea bargin.
PFC
WFM
CDK
BJJ
JPV
JTK
TRAYLOR, J. not on panel.