Opinion
23-K-181
04-10-2023
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. LANDON PERRILLOUX
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE DONALD L. FORET, DIVISION "H", NUMBER 20-4018
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Robert A. Chaisson, and Stephen J. Windhorst
WRIT GRANTED WITH INSTRUCTIONS; RULING REVERSED; MOTION FOR STAY DENIED AS MOOT
In this emergency writ application, the State of Louisiana, joined by defendant, Landon Perrilloux, seek this Court's supervisory review of the trial court's ruling which denied their joint motion to continue the trial, which is currently in progress. Relators also seek a stay of the trial pending this Court's resolution of the writ application.
On July 6, 2022, defendant was charged by bill of information with third degree rape in violation of La. R.S. 14:43. Defendant pleaded not guilty at his arraignment. Trial was set to begin today, April 10, 2023. This morning, the parties orally moved for a joint continuance of the trial to facilitate further potential plea discussions. According to the transcript of today's hearing on the motion to continue the trial, defense counsel noted that the parties were close to resolving the matter. The State concurred, noting that more time was needed to negotiate a plea agreement between the parties because of the nature of the charge. The parties stated that both the victim and defendant were in agreement to continue the trial and wished to resolve the matter without having to proceed to trial. The trial court denied the joint motion and gave the parties approximately one hour, or until 10:30 a.m. today, to either resolve the matter or the matter would proceed to trial.
In this writ application, the parties argue that, considering the circumstances presented, the trial court abused its discretion in denying their joint motion to continue the trial because the case is less than one year old, this is the first trial setting, and the victim wishes to resolve the case without trial if possible.
Upon review, under the circumstances presented, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the joint motion to continue the trial. See State v. Briscoe, 22-430 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/16/22) (unpublished writ disposition); State v. Brooks, 23-113 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/6/23) (unpublished writ disposition); State v. Barnes, 11-1186 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/29/11), 72 So.3d 939. See also State v. Watson, 22-00719 (La. 5/1/22), 338 So.3d 1169. Accordingly, we grant the writ application and reverse the trial court's ruling which denied the joint motion to continue the trial set for today, April 10, 2023, and direct the trial court to continue the trial to a reasonable date in the future convenient to the court and the parties. Because of our decision, the request for a stay is denied as moot.
Gretna, Louisiana, this 10th day of April, 2023.
JGG
RAC
WINDHORST, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS
I agree with the result in this writ because of the facts and grounds presented in the transcript of the joint motion for continuance and the relatively brief procedural history of the case. I concur to point out that I maintain the position taken in my dissent in State v. Darwin Bethune, 18-147 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/26/18) to the effect that a joint motion to continue by the defendant and the State is not a per se ground for a continuance which denies the trial court any discretion. I therefore remain in respectful disagreement with State v. Barnes, 11-1186 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/29/11), 72 So.3d 939, which is among the authorities cited by the majority. See also La. C.Cr.P. art. 17.
The majority writ also cites State v. Watson, 22-00719 (La. 5/1/22), 338 So.3d 1169. Although on its face the case does not seem to hold that a joint motion by defense and State is a per se ground for continuance, I strongly agree with the dissent by Justice Crain.
SJW