"Because an abuse-of-discretion standard almost always requires an appellate court to defer to the trial court's admittedly discretionary ruling, in order to obtain a reversal of such a discretionary ruling, a complaining party is usually required to show that the trial judge's ruling was based upon a mistaken application of law." State v. Lee, 2011-0398, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/30/12), 83 So.3d 1191, 1196.
Under this standard, an appellate court must defer to the district judge’s ruling unless the moving party can show that the judge’s ruling was based upon a mistaken application of the law. State v. Lee, 2011-0398, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/30/12), 83 So. 3d 1191, 1196 (internal citation omitted). If the ruling is based upon a legal mistake, it will not be entitled to deference.
Under this standard, an appellate court must defer to the district judge's ruling unless the moving party can show that the judge's ruling was based upon a mistaken application of the law. State v. Lee , 2011-0398, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/30/12), 83 So. 3d 1191, 1196 (internal citation omitted). If the ruling is based upon a legal mistake, it will not be entitled to deference.
Louisiana courts have applied code articles regarding motions to continue to motions for recess. See, e.g.,White , 389 So.2d at 1302 ; State v. Lee , 11-398 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/30/12), 83 So.3d 1191, 1197 ; State v. Douglas , 10-2039 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/26/11), 72 So.3d 392, 401, writs denied , 11-2307 (La. 5/25/12), 90 So.3d 406 and 12-2508 (La. 5/3/13), 115 So.3d 474 ; State v. Kinsey , 42,935 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/13/08), 976 So.2d 315, 317. According to Code of Criminal Procedure art. 712, "[a] motion for continuance, if timely filed, may be granted, in the discretion of the court, in any case if there is good ground therefor."
The district court's refusal was legal error requiring vacatur and remand. SeeState v. Lee , 11-0398, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/30/12), 83 So.3d 1191, 1196 (observing that "[a] district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law") (quoting Koon v. United States , 518 U.S. 81, 100, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) ); accord State v. Pearson , 836 N.W.2d 88, 97 (Iowa 2013) (vacating a sentence where the district court failed to consider the potential for rehabilitation, as required by Miller ). The related assignments of error have merit.
Nevertheless, when a district court's ruling is based upon an error of law, the ruling is no longer entitled to deference by the reviewing court because "[a] district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law." State v. Lee, 11-0398, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/30/12), 83 So.3d 1191, 1196 (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court did not reference the Letter in either its oral ruling or its subsequent written judgment on the motion to quash.
Nevertheless, when a district court's ruling is based upon an error of law, the ruling is no longer entitled to deference by the reviewing court because "[a] district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law." State v. Lee , 11-0398, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/30/12), 83 So.3d 1191, 1196 (quoting Koon v. United States , 518 U.S. 81, 100, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court did not reference the Letter in either its oral ruling or its subsequent written judgment on the motion to quash.
But "[b]ecause an abuse-of-discretion standard almost always requires an appellate court to defer to the trial court's admittedly discretionary ruling, in order to obtain a reversal of such a discretionary ruling, a complaining party is usually required to show that the trial judge's ruling was based on a mistaken application of law." State v. Lee , 11-0398, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/30/12), 83 So.3d 1191, 1196 (citing Koon v. U.S. , 518 U.S. 81, 100, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) ). "When a trial judge's ruling is based upon a legal mistake, the ruling is no longer entitled to deference by the reviewing court." Id. ("A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.").
4 Cir. 4/9/08), 982 So.2d 928, 933). Of course, “[a] district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” State v. Lee, 11–0398, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/30/12), 83 So.3d 1191, 1196 (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996)). Boudreaux's purchased the subject property in 2004 for $275,000.00.
On review, we recognize that it is well settled that a court of appeal will not reverse a trial court's decision on a defendant's motion to reconsider or re-urge his motion to suppress absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. State v. Lee, 11–398 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/30/12), 83 So.3d 1191; State v. Robinson, 11–12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/29/11), 87 So.3d 881, n. 14. The transcript from the October 20, 2010 suppression hearing reveals that defendant was well aware of the seizure of the items of his personal property but, despite this knowledge, engaged only in limited questioning on this topic.